Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Shona witch doctor (Zimbabwe).jpg

Delist: Shona witch doctor (Zimbabwe)
Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2017 at 13:33:04 (UTC)
 * Reason:1. poor quality: over-exposed, and even burnt-out areas; 2. it's a tourist setup, and not a true depiction of the stated subject
 * Nominator: FunkyCanute (talk)


 * Delist &mdash; FunkyCanute (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep impressive quality for 1989. Tomer T (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good quality for 1989. Did you even bother contacting Hans Hillewaert, who took the image, or Tomer T, who nominated the image? (per the instructions) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did "even bother". Why the rudeness? FunkyCanute (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Lets see, a) you waited a grand total of one day after this ran on the main page to nominate, b) nominated by essentially claiming that everyone who supported the original nomination on Wikipedia and on Commons was blind ("exceptionally poor quality", as if this were somehow worse than or on par with the images in this article), c) did not provide any source for your claim that "it's a tourist setup", and d) have yet to notify User:Lycaon, the photographer, despite the explicit statement that you must do so that pops up every time you create a delist nomination. When you ABF and fail to follow clear instructions, you will receive a less than stellar reception.
 * As for your quality concerns, this image was taken in an equatorial area on a bright clear day with a relatively reflective surface. Even with modern equipment, it's difficult to strike a good balance between shadows and highlights in such conditions, let alone with the amateur cameras of 1989. The blown highlights are limited to the reflection on the man's face and the feathers on his belt, which combined represent less than 1% of the total image area. Blown highlights are acceptable, to a certain extent, in FPs. File:Wat Phra Kaew by Ninara TSP edit crop.jpg, for example, passed FPC unanimously four months ago despite very prominent blown highlights on the reflective surface of the temple (spire?). FPC reviewers are generally able to recognize the technical limitations of a shot, and !vote accordingly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't explain the rudeness. Just adds to it. I saw it on the main page and nominated then. It is obviously not as bad as those to which you link, and which are clearly not worthy of comment. I disagree with the original nomination and support: that's how Wikipedia works. I know enough about photography to know that even in 1989 you could take photographs of better quality in midday sun. These days (for the last 10-20 years?), with the ability to post-process digital files, I'd have expected a much higher threshold for acceptance as a mainpage feature pic. No, I haven't provided evidence that it's a tourist setup, but it is obviously so to anyone who has travelled in Zimbabwe. As it happens, I have similar pictures, which I took in 1983 (albeit of even worse technical quality). Finally, my recollection is that the nominator must inform either the photographer or the original nominator: that is, in fact, what you've said above. I chose to inform the latter. If that was an error, there are polite ways to instruct me otherwise, for example: "you haven't told the photographer, you need to do that." or, if you're a really good sort, "Hey, please advise the photographer of your nomination". You're at fault: there's no excuse for rudeness. A simple apology would suffice. Have a great day. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I specifically stated "Equatorial area" at noon, on a sunny day. Cameras handle that far differently than something at 50 degrees north/south (as I noticed very quickly during trips to Canada and Australia, my main base of operations being Indonesia). Even modern cameras will have trouble with images of reflective surfaces at equatorial areas, at noon, on a sunny day. They will either blow the shadows (assuming one compensates for the highlights) or blow the highlights (assuming one compensates for the shadows). Or perhaps you have a recent image you wish to offer as proof? I've already shown one example, from a higher latitude.
 * I am not going to apologize for something you perceive as rude, especially when it was not intended to be so. I perceive your statement that this image is of objectively poor quality (and implication that 15 unanimous reviewers in two nominations were incompetent), your unwillingness to actually provide a reference for your other claim, and your lack of an even pro-forma notification to the photographer (whose work you are commenting upon) downright insulting, but I am not asking for or demanding an apology, as I expect you did not intend to be rude or insulting. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagreement does not in any way suggest that I consider anyone to be incompetent, and it cannot follow that it is de facto insulting. If that were the case, no collaborative endeavour would be possible. Let me make it clear, I don't consider anyone to be incompetent who has remarked upon this image. No one has asked for supporting evidence, but I have said that I'm unable to provide it. That I am unable to offer it cannot reasonably be considered insulting. I wish I could provide evidence. I haven't informed the photographer for the reasons mentioned above. Since you haven't disagreed with my understanding of the due process, I will take it that I have indeed correctly followed it. To consider my following of procedure insulting seems curious. "Did you even bother..." is unequivocally rude, and you have admitted that it was intended as such: "...you will receive a less than stellar reception". But having said "When you ABF and fail to follow clear instructions...", you have failed to counter my statement of my understanding, thereby suggesting that your very premise for your unpleasant response was misplaced. You, sir, are rude. FunkyCanute (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep For the 1989 is good -- LivioAndronico (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep --PetarM (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep SagaciousPhil  - Chat 13:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 21:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)