Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Snail

Snail

 * Reason:For some reason there were a lot of strong supporters, and not one was an opposer. DOF is very shallow and narrow and not acceptable for a snail that size. The blown highlights behind the eyes distract. Some parts need sharpening while others are over sharpened. The shell seems half sharpened, half not as if edits were made to one side of the shell only (it looks like a stitching error). The edges seems too edited at full size. There are many more technical problems, but these should be acceptable for delisting.
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/Snail-WA
 * Nominator:  Zoo Fari 


 * Delist &mdash;  Zoo Fari  23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep You said where there are shortfalls but the better option I think is to either fix it up or put in a request for someone else to fix it up, I forget the exact page for that though, and let it get fixed then do a delist and replace so the improved image is featured, not delisting it entirely. Cat-five - talk 01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist I have always been unimpressed by this image. Between the blown background and the lack of detail on the snail itself, it simply is not our best work. Because there is no data in blown highlights, and not enough detail to "fix it up", this cannot be salvaged in photoshop. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist: In agreement with ZooFari and Calliopejen1.  Mae din \talk 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question You are referring to size. How big is this snail? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's height is about 2 centimeters in height. (for an adult, I'm not sure how large this one is)  Zoo Fari  15:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. So less than an inch in length, and that afaik is the length of the "foot", not the shell. I'm not sure how convincing it would be to delist this on the basis of sharpness relative to size, not to mention that Cat-five has made a very reasonable suggestion. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Info Edit nominated. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have made an exception, but the blown highlights don't convince me. Past FP candidates (similar in size) failed due to the fact of minor blown highlights. This one has too much and see this unfair.  Zoo Fari  22:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That argument makes no sense in my opinion, we can't compare every FP to every other FP to determine per a subjective set of rules what fits and what doesn't if those rules change with each FP examined. If that were the case then we should just delist every n om because per your criteria nothing should be featured because it wouldn't be "fair" to the other pictures that maybe are more deserving but have their own minor flaws. Cat-five - talk 09:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying this as obtaining fairness among my own opinion. Nothing is perfect in photography. And I mean nothing, even if it seems excellent. However, if this was being nominated above, would you support? The poor quality seems obvious to me, and doesn't fit our criteria anymore. It is not my decision, which is why I nominate here.  Zoo Fari  23:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or replace. If blown highlights were a strong criterion, this couldn't have been promoted, and this might have had some problems. Dig around long enough, and you'll find many more examples. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)