Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/wolfspider

wolfspider

Wolf Spider

Severe Jpeg artifacting, overall poor quality of image, and the upper portion of the image surrounding the spider is blurred and maybe even blown out (?).

Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 21:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I do really like the image based upon the pose of the spider, but this is a very common spider, and it is very commonly in a similar pose. So, there is no reason to look over the problems with the photo. --liquidGhoul 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite why you chose to Keep? -- AJ24 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give it a break AJ24! It's been all of 5 months since it was last nominated for delisting, wiht a result of 9 keep and 1 delist. --Fir0002 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on Discussion, a vested interest... -- AJ24 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per LiquidGhoul. Also doesn't meet resolution requirements. (Sorry, Fir.) -- moondigger 23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom .. this image's quality just bugs me. It's too small and too blurry. No prejudice to the photographer, of course. --Cyde↔Weys 17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This scene easily beats all the other spider FP scenes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:15
- So all somebody has to do to get a slightly blurry and low resolution picture featured is upload a bunch of even lower-quality versions of the same subject to compare it to? -- moondigger 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - (BTW, Fir, that's not directed at you, nor am I implying that's what you did. It's just a thought experiment intended as a response to Brian's comment.) -- moondigger 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're not making any sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 05:29
    - Come on, Brian. I know you understand what I'm saying. We're supposed to judge FPCs against the FP criteria, not other images. By that reasoning we could just promote any mediocre image, as long as other images of the same subject are worse. And if all the other spider FPs are actually worse than this one, then people have been promoting spider images to FP status not based on the criteria, but based on the "Yikes, a spider!" reaction. -- moondigger 13:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm comparing one FP against other FP's. I'm assuming that they all got to be FPs based on people judging them against the FP criteria, so it's a level playing field. What you're suggesting I'm implying is completely different. Your first comment really did make no sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:37
Weak keep, it really is too low resolution... but, it is just about the best scene we have. moondigger seems to have a great sense of image quality... but, I can't say that we should delist it just because of image quality (and it isn't horrible) when I don't see images that have a comparably good scene. gren グレン 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most people have a good sense of image quality if they are willing to look at an image critically rather than simply reacting to their first impression/emotion. ("Ooh... blue!" [Pangong Lake] or "Yikes, a closeup of a spider!") I may be a stickler around here, but I'm a pushover compared to college-level photography instructors, magazine/art editors, and even most of the random participants on photography forums. (FWIW, I am/have been a moderator and contributor to two of the biggest/most respected photography web forums on the internet over the past 9+ years.) In any case I seem to be in a distinct minority here, as few agree with me about much of anything. :^) -- moondigger 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - More or less I agree and trust you on just about everything... except your vision of what a featured picture is. You would have a rather small set of photos with very stringent requirements. But it varies among users. Even the 1000px requirement is tempered by "generally". Not everyone will ever agree on what a FP should be. It's part of the boon or bane of Wikipedia. You are completely right that we react emotionally to images. I didn't weigh in on the Sidi Saiyyad Ni Jaali picture because I think it's nifty looking no matter photo quality. Upon closer look I didn't like how it was lined up...slight angle, different amoungs shown of the circular protrusions, etc. but... there still is an emotional reaction to photos. I'm not sure that's bad. I just don't like the arguing... when it happens editors lead. It's why Zora hasn't been around for a month and I stay away from Islam-related articles as they descend into the pit of hell ~_~. Your critique is incredible valuable and has swayed me on a few. Keep it up but I just wish that everyone would keep the atmosphere here a little friendlier. It's only a question of if an image is featured or not. It's not anything near like the tensions involved in say, Middle East articles. gren グレン 07:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I think Fir should just go and shoot a new wolf spider photo. He can clearly do better than this. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Agree with Dante. This looks like a crop from a slightly blurry pic which you tried to save using the sharpen tool. --Dschwen 20:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing so substantively wrong with this picture that it should be delisted. --Bagginz 02:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you think a better image can be created then do so. Gnangarra 03:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To be accurate, I said that Fir could take a better shot (he IS the original shooter, and quite a good photographer), not that I could do it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Ravedave 07:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per criteria when promoted. Would appreciate a higher res version in future (at which time I would be happy to delist this). --jjron 10:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Pretty good photo is too small. -Seidenstud 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retained. 7 Delist, 7.5 Keep --Fir0002 10:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]