Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Baltimore Washington Monument

Baltimore Washington Monument

Reason: Featured nearly 2 years ago and more than likely wouldn't pass now. It's not compelling, poor image quality, not particluarly large and odd composition (given that the fountain is not part of the monument).
Nominator: Witty lama

Delist — Witty lama 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~more on principle than anything else that by that logic pretty much every nomination over x days months or years old should be delisted. Cat-five - talk 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)~~ Because nobody has given a satisfactory reason why this should be delisted and thus it should stay. Cat-five - talk 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing on principle because you disagree with Witty lama's multiple delist nominations is WP:POINT - please consider the image against today's WP:FP? criteria. --YFB ¿ 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did Not list it here because it was featured a long time ago. I listed it here, along with the others, becasue it would not, IMHO, stand up to the FPnomination process as it currently stands. All the FPs that I've listed here have achieved "consensus delist" so far, I'm not "out to get" old FPs. Witty Lama 11:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your entirely right it is WP:POINT so I'll change my reasoning given. Cat-five - talk 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it still sounds like WP:POINT except you're using a more plausible reason as a front for your previously expressed beliefs. I think Witty lama did provide a perfectly reasonable reason for delisting though. Not that it should be reason alone to delist but the image is also poorly named and is saved with an inappropriate format for a photo. It just compounds the already mentioned issues to me. Nothing about it shouts FP so why should it remain FP? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delist - Strange composition, tilt, lack of detail, noise, poor lighting, easily replaceable with a better image. --YFB ¿ 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. As per comments above. Poor overall quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, I hope this reason will be good enough for Cat-five. It's an object still standing so this image doesn't represent any scarcity. The quality is decent but if you look at current nominations you will see that this is very blurred, showing little detail compared to what better cameras can do. gren グレン 04:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleist per Witty Diliff. --Dschwen 06:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Image meets all FP criteria and adds considerably to article. As per Yummi's concerns, see discussion from when picture was originally selected. The tilt is right on at 90 degrees the lighting was perfect, and you can't get much more detail of this monument. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the illusion of tilt is caused by the slightly off-centre composition combined with the upward viewing angle; the base of the monument is clearly tilted and I think the column just happens to line up due to the perspective effect of having the camera slightly off-centre. The apparent tilt was only one of the many reasons why this picture is nowhere near the best of Wikipedia's images. The lighting is dull (the original image was underexposed on an apparently dull day), there's severe over-use of post-processing which has brought out 'haloed' edges, there's motion blur on the trees, there's loads of colour noise (exacerbated by the processing) and, seen alongside many of our other architectural FPs (particularly those by Diliff) the assertion that you "can't get much more detail of this monument" is... well, I'll be polite and say "highly dubious". You can't even see the inscription on the base. --YFB ¿ 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --YFB ¿ 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]