Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Netta rufina m2.jpg delist

Delist and replace: Netta rufina m2.jpg
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013  at 18:46:05 (UTC)
 * Reason:This image is no longer up to the standards we expect of bird photography in my opinion. It's not of sufficient resolution and is also quite soft. I took a better photo of this bird and replaced it in the article so this image is no longer used. It has already been nominated for delisting twice already in 2006 and 2008. In the first delist, it only just passed and in the second delist, for some reason it never made it to the FPC page. It's time to get rid of it properly this time IMO. I'm suggesting a delist and replace with the second image, but alternatively, I'm happy to just delist without replacing.
 * Articles this image appears in:None anymore, but previously Red-crested Pochard
 * Previous nomination/s:Original nomination: Featured picture candidates/Red-crested Pochard

First delist nomination: Featured picture candidates/Red-crested Pochard delist

Second delist nomination:
 * Nominator: &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)


 * Delist and replace &mdash; &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist and Replace Nice find. It seems like a clear cut case of upgrading to a higher quality image. Mattximus (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist and replace new image is obviously much better quality, but I'm undecided about replace it as a FP at the moment. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist -- per Mattximus &#39;&#39;&#39;Johncy&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarity, can you confirm if you vote to delist and replace, or just delist? Mattximas voted to replace also. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist and Replace Nikhil (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist and do not replace. I find that neither image is is of the technical quality of a featured photo.  The suggested replacement is better, but still not up to par. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, what aspects of the alt do you find missing, or what technical aspects could be improved? Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder that also as the user supported this nomination which I believe is of significantly lower technical quality, especially considering the relative difficulty of photographing a moving bird vs a stationary building. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer David's question first: I do not believe that this photo took anymore skill than a building for multiple reasons. First, there are no location issues.  The reflection in the bird's eye shows that you were standing on a dock/walking path.  The location also shows you would have been on this path.  The location is also a protected wetland/wildlife center where these birds are not afraid of humans.  The bird itself is obviously not moving much, so therefore not much difference in photographing a building and and this animal.  As for the technical aspects that I think could be improved, the first I noticed is the angle of the photograph due to the nature of where the photographer could stand.  I think a lower angle would be more appropriate as it would do a better job of showing the bird. Obviously this would mean the photographer would have to find a different location. If the photographer (with his skills) take the same photo with an angle closer to File:Netta rufina tom (Marek Szczepanek).jpg I would probably support (the angle of that photo is the only thing I can appreciate).  There is also softness around the tail that would be nicer to be more in focus.  The most distracting part of the image to me is the white spot above the creature's head.  One might think that it is a reflection in the water, but as it is a near perfect circle, that would not make sense with water movement.  Rather it looks like something may have been on the lenses or floating in air between the camera and the duck. Hope this helps. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  16:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if the location is 'revisitable', that doesn't mean that it's as easy as taking a photo of a stationary building. It seems that you make superficial claims about the difficulty without a detailed understanding of what it takes to better the photo and what the inherent limitations are. To get down as low as necessary for the 'delist' image would require me to lay on my stomach on the edge of the pond (let's not forget that ducks defecate indiscriminately!). Also, it does appear that the bird is not moving around much but I assure you it is. You can see from the bow waves that it is moving forward. With very limited depth of field and with imperfect focus tracking, it is not easy to get the whole duck in focus as it rarely sits there parallel with the plane of focus and waits for you to get the focus just right. I'm not trying to make excuses for why the image is not perfect. I'm just explaining why it is most certainly not as easy to take a photo of a duck than a building. As for the spot above the duck's head... Really? You're not bothered by an inherent softness across an entire subject, but you're bothered by an out of focus blob? I assure you, it likely is a reflection on the water. It is not there in any other images taken just movements before and after. Specular highlights do in fact look like near perfect circles when not in focus and I'm pretty sure that's what they are. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delist and replace Jujutacular (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist, weak replace (full support for the delisting, weak support for the promotion): I wonder whether delist and replace noms should be reserved for straightforward improvements on the same image (so, a new restoration, a higher-quality scan, a different crop) separate photographs. I feel like the photograph should be judged on its own merits, rather than in contrast to the other image (which I think we all agree should be delisted). These kinds of nominations always seem to result in some confusion. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How are we not judging the nominated replacement image on its merits though? A delist and replace nomination is fairly straightforward, except it asks one question then a follow up question: Should this image be delisted, and if so, should the second image replace it as a FP? Seems like most people are considering both questions separately and not assuming that a decision to delist automatically implies a replacement also. I agree that separate nominations would also work just fine, but I don't see how there's evidence of confusion to justify doubling the nominations. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  19:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist and Replace. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

with File:Netta rufina (Red-crested Pochard) Male, London Wetland Centre - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)