Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Fractal Broccoli.jpg

Brassica oleracea
Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 18:42:06 (UTC)
 * Reason:The image does not meet the size standards, and also, I find it somewhat out of focus, dizzy and weird. Better images can be found.
 * Articles this image appears in:Brassica oleracea, Broccoflower, Romanesco broccoli,
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured_picture_candidates/September-2004
 * Nominator: — ΛΧΣ  21


 * Delist — ΛΧΣ  21  18:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist and replace. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist, don't replace. 1 is OK, but given the amount of space around the vegetable, it's pretty small. 2 has a weird background and part of the subject is out of focus; 3 is almost entirely out of focus. You're quite right about the original. Chick Bowen 01:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Update I have improved the first possible replacement. I think it is up to standard now. — ΛΧΣ  21  01:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't think that was an improvement. I reverted it, primarily because I think, for the sake of courtesy, a change that great should be upload under a separate filename. But also--all you did was crop it and whiten the background, though not uniformly, leaving some odd gray blotches. Chick Bowen 21:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist, don't replace - I think that from a technical quality standpoint, possible replacement 1 is the best. It is to me, however, the worst of the four at illustrating the... erm... fractalness of the plant. The angles on the other ones all show it better, IMO. That being said, I think that the backgrounds of replacements 2 and 3 are distracting, and I'm really not a fan of the original.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist, don't replace to many options presented, once a good one is located it can be nominated separately, but this image needs to go for sure. — raeky  t  00:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment I warned about this on the talk page, we can't start delisting retroactively just because the size standards change. Go to the original nomination (linked above) and you'll see nobody even mentioned the size of the image.  Unless there is a good reason to delist it or an image that better represents the subject then it should be kept.  If you think it should be delisted because it's out of focus then nominate it for that, don't use it as a hedge reason because people might notice that the size criticism doesn't hold up to an examination of the FP criteria.  Cat-five  t  c   06:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for everyone else, but my delist vote was not based primarily on the size; it was because the subject is not sharp, and has a strangely abstracted relationship to the black background, which I'm quite sure is artificial. This feeling is pretty well summed up by the nominator's comment that the image is "weird." I strongly agree with you that images shouldn't be delisted solely because of size. Chick Bowen 19:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My criticism was mainly aimed at the nominator more than the voters but something that the voters should keep in mind. Too many people use size as a reason to oppose a nomination or support delisting but try to backstop it with another issue.  In this case the other issue may be pertinent and a good enough reason to delist but if it is then the size shouldn't be an issue.  Cat-five  t  c   22:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there may very well be a non-size reason to delist I'm crossing off my keep vote and turning it into a comment. Cat-five  t  c   22:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My vote has nothing to do with size, but it's just a BAD picture, BAD cutout, and even if it was a huge image I would never vote for it. — raeky  t  20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist and replace with #1, higher resolution and high EV because of its sterile setting. --LucLewitanski (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe this picture should be delisted due to it not meeting current size requirements. I believe that it was agreed that current FP's would not be affected by the criteria change. Dusty 777 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 18:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)