Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Sparrow on ledge.jpg

Sparrow on ledge.jpg

For delisting Female House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), Bairnsdale, Victoria

Not for delisting Another FP with better composition

Reason: Another featured picture of the same species and gender with better composition and background exists.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sparrow on ledge.jpg
Previous nominator notified: Y [1]
Nominator: Muhammad(talk)

Delist — Muhammad(talk) 11:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Agreed. Poor composition and better images exist. In fact, I recently took this one which IMO is probably better than either of the examples above. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW one is a female, one is a male. They are sexually dimorphic and so a FP of each is reasonable. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, they are sexually dimorphic, but both images are described as female. The description of the female in the House Sparrow article describes the female as lacking the black mark on the neck, which neither of the sparrows in the images above have, so I would say they are both female. Either way, as I said, I feel the image linked to in my previous comment is better than either of them and is also a female. It displaced the image up for delisting in the House Sparrow article on the 25th of May and has remained there since. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree the quality is better in yours but I prefer the composition of Fir's. Anyway, that's another issue and we can probably open up another delist and replace nom for that. --Muhammad(talk) 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I must say that I don't like the lighting. Anyways, I don't want to support or oppose, but I do agree with Diliff that his sparrow makes a better female example in the taxobox. Zoo Fari 02:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still a fine image. I'm not sure why you'd be delisting Muhammad given this recent nom. Also it's well established that there's no limit to how many FP's there can be of one subject. This image has very dynamic lighting and good composition which sets it apart from others - it's a common bird so it's good to have a slightly artistic scene. Also on a side topic, IMO it's pretty poor form of you Diliff to remove an FP from its primary article without any discussion/consensus. Talkpage would have been a good start. I don't think the extra pixels on yours make up for the more distracting background and IMO less interesting pose... --Fir0002 12:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I thought that there might be contention over the replacement, I would have brought it to the talk page prior, but if I'm completely honest I didn't see a single aspect of your image that was superior. I don't find the background distracting (yes there is the bokeh of grass, but it doesn't bother me particularly). And then there's the image quality. The quality of either of your current FPs are clearly below current standards and I find it very difficult to believe that you would support them if they were nominated today and taken by somebody else. And you're right that there's no strict limit to how many FPs we can have of one subject, but in practise we usually want to see a different aspect in each one and not just a series of similar images. Where the images are too similar, it's generally been best practise to keep just one although I admit there have been exceptions - My own images of Tower Bridge for example. I'd be happy to delist one of them BTW, but I think in that case one had extreme detail, and the other had better aesthetics and so each provided something different to the viewer. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree about the "dynamic lighting and good composition which sets it apart from others" And if we can have more than 1 FP about a subject, then I prefer Diliff's over the one being delisted here. Muhammad(talk) 18:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept No consensus --wadester 16 16:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]