Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Caribou from Wagon Trails.jpg

Barren-ground Caribou

 * Reason:I think this picture is pretty, is used well within an article and captures a moment well- I congratulate the photographer. However, I do not feel the technical quality is truly there- the colour doesn't look quite right, there appears to be a moderate amount of overexposure and the focus is a long way from fantastic (and when the space is taken into account, this isn't even a massive picture, pixel-wise). The lighting could also be better- the animal appears to be in shadow, while the water behind it is bright. The fact that the animal is albino both brings out the colour/lighting issues and raises questions of EV- this isn't a typical example of the animal.
 * Articles this image appears in:Barren-ground Caribou, fauna of Saskatchewan
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/Caribou from Wagon Trails.jpg
 * Nominator: J Milburn (talk)


 * Delist &mdash; J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * this isn't even a massive picture, pixel-wise... ...2,064 × 1,413 pixels. While I appreciate the epiphany, it seems a bit ridiculous use this as a delisting argument and go on happily promoting 1600x1000 pixel pictures. --Dschwen 22:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's big enough, I was just meaning that its size could not be used to excuse other problems. It's certainly not my issue with the picture. I placed it in brackets for a reason :) J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Question The putative original version (26 June 2005, 780,627 bytes = 762KB) is missing. Administrator epic fail? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's there. I'm assuming you can't see it because you're not an administrator. See here. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just have to question the basis of this nomination if there's no opportunity for normal users to work on the original version of the image. So maybe some administrator can get their ass into gear and re-upload the image so that it's accessible for everybody else as well? I remind you that it was uploaded and licensed with the intention of being available - why is it being withheld now? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand? The image is available on Commons? J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you were looking/what you were seeing, because I don't think it was on Commons. In any case, it definitely is now: File:Caribou from Wagon Trails original.jpg.  White balance is noticeably different.   Mae din \talk 06:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist, per the nominator. It wouldn't have a snowball's chance today. Interesting, but nothing special quality-wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyharmless (talk • contribs) 05:23, 22 April 2010
 * Keep One other albino image got promoted fairly recently. Quality concerns can be dealt with by edits from the original upload which is now available. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not comparable. Used in the albinism article, and in the article on the species to illustrate the growing albino population on a specific island. This image is used as a lead, for a "this is what the animal looks like", for which it is not suitable. As for the issue of providing an edit, we can discuss an edit when it is forthcoming; this current image, however, does not seem to be up to current standards. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong place to complain if you dislike the taxobox image. Sort it out on article talk please. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad taxobox image, but it's not a great one. I'm not sitting here and saying it shouldn't be in the taxobox, I'm just saying it shouldn't be a featured picture, as it is a long way from a typical specimen. It may alarm you to know that we are allowed non-FPs in taxoboxes. I am not challenging its inclusion in the article, but I certainly think a more suitable image could be forthcoming. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This image is used as a lead, for a "this is what the animal looks like", for which it is not suitable. I still read that as a complaint about inclusion in the lede. It does alarm me that you're clamouring for a "typical" specimen in the taxobox. First of all, what, in nature, is really "typical"? Colour variants are a fact of nature, and this individual survived into adulthood. Secondly, there isn't even another image available to reasonably put in the taxobox, so your reasoning for wanting to delist this remains absolutely atrocious. In terms of the composition, by criteria we've recently used, the image has high EV because it shows that the animal has a facultative swimming habit (see File:Caribou traversant la rivière aux Feuilles.jpg for proof from another subspecies), without obscuring most of the body. As for "forthcoming", there hasn't been another image in nearly five years now - do you have anything special to announce? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that something is used in the lead of an article does not automatically mean that the EV is sky-high. This animal has been identified as "abnormal" or "atypical" in labelling it as albino- unless specificially illustrating that abnormality, a better image could be produced (the fact one has yet to surface has nothing to do with it- have a look around, request a few. If still nothing, wait) and so this is not feature-worthy. Regardless of this question, you can at least see the severe technical shortcomings when compared to the kind of thing being nominated now, I am assuming? J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have just figured out that you've been completely ignoring what I've been saying. Well done - you had me there for a while. :) Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. If I have failed to understand what you're saying, please try to explain it again. I have no problem with this being in the lead of the article, however, at the same time, I feel a better image could be used in the lead. Until something better comes along, it's ok to use, but that doesn't mean it's ok to feature. Take this image- not a bad lead image for Lady Gaga, but certainly not featurable. I would be able to quite consistently support its retention in the lead, while opposing its promotion as a featured picture. If this is not what you're talking about, then no, I haven't the foggiest. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per PLW, if there are flaws with the image deal with them then try to replace it, the image has a high enough EV and is a good enough image that it shouldn't just be arbitrarily delisted. Since it seems like the washed out (for lack of a better word) areas are in the water reflections on the northwest and north (around the antlers) sections I'm not sure what can be done to remedy that but hopefully someone can give it a try. Cat-five - talk 20:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be nice, but having something as a featured picture on the off-chance someone will fix it is a little flawed. If this wasn't already a featured picture, would you be supporting it? Why should we have lower standards for things that already happen to be featured? J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an excuse to keep low quality FP's but I'll note that we used to have a lot of lower quality FP's and although some were just delisted many were replaced when a better one came up. If featured pictures are supposed to be the best of the best I challenge you to find a better picture of the subject to replace it otherwise unless it is a truly horrible picture that slipped through, which this is not, I see no reason to delist it. Cat-five - talk 15:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "It's the best we have" is no reason to feature it (or, in this case, to keep it featured). Pictures should be judged on their own merits. (If you feel there are other low quality FPs, go ahead and nominate them for delisting.) I ask you again- would you support it if it was nominated? If not, why fight to retain it? J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)