Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Tasmanian Native-hen.jpg

Tasmanian Native-hen

 * Reason:Looking at it now it has too much contrast and the harsh sun isn't looking that good. File:Gallinula mortierii 1.jpg is a better replacement.
 * Previous nomination/s:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tasmanian Native-hen.jpg
 * Nominator: Noodle snacks (talk)


 * Delist &mdash; Noodle snacks (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks okay to me. Contrasty yes, and I couldn't say whether it's realistic looking or not, but it's still a good capture and is still used in the article. No need to delist IMO. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist. Is a very nice shot, only is a bit unbalanced (composition). Looks like it is about to fall over after it just steped in a hole while watching the photographer. I like the pose of Gallinula mortierii 1 better. Elekhh (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I do agree with Ekekhh about the posture, but if that is the only problem I err on the side of Keep. Who am I to override the unanimous judgment of seven people.  Nezzadar   ☎   07:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per nom. I actually prefer the composition here than in the other one, but I believe if an editor feels their own image no longer meets the standards then we should not stand in their way. --jjron (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that really how it should work? A delist nom is just the reverse process to an FPC promotion nom. Using the same logic, you could trust a nominator's judgement for promotions too, but then it wouldn't be a community consensus... &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we discussed recently about my concept of nominators 'pushing their luck' with nominations. That's not necessarily wrong, but the point was in general people will err in favour of their own work, and it's up to the community to decide by consensus whether the nominator's judgement is correct. Delisting is not the same thing, in fact quite the opposite (if you're erring in favour of your own work and you still think it's not making the mark, you probably have a point). Thus if someone really feels their own work should be removed, then I do respect their opinion, especially from a reliable editor like NS. --jjron (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that NS is wrong, it's just that we all have different opinions and it's best to consider the merits of the image yourself, rather than deferring to their judgement. As much as I respect the opinion of NS like yourself, I disagree that it's below the current standards of FP and you even alluded to that yourself when you said you preferred the composition of this one. You didn't seem to so much trust his judgement as respect his wishes. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well both maybe. Yes I prefer the composition, but agree with his other comments. While I wouldn't have nominated this for delist myself, neither would I support as an FPC - by voting to keep I assume you would (and yet didn't :-) ). Thus if he no longer feels it is satisfactory then I will support his judgement on that. --jjron (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many reasons why I don't vote on every image that passes through. :-) Sometimes life gets in the way of Wikipedia... &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on...surely WP should come first ;-). --jjron (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per nom, File:Gallinula mortierii 1.jpg is better technically. — raeky ( talk 14:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist - the other FP is much better.--Avala (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)