Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Grand Tetons Barns

Grand Tetons Barns[edit]

Reason: I think it is time to delist this image; following is my reason:

It displays extensive JPEG artifacts
The snow is blown out

As this image can be retaken, the historical exception doesn't apply.

The license contains evidence that the author isn't fully aware of what "Public Domain" is; don't know if that is fully relevant, but could be investigated.

Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mormon row barns
Nominator: _→AzaToth

Delist — _→AzaToth 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just notified author, though based on contributions, hasn't been active since Jan 2007. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Borderline. It is a decent image, but the image quality is simply lacking by modern standards and detail is 'mushy'. By the way, which part of the license makes you think he isn't fully aware of what "public domain" is? I don't see anything wrong with it, but maybe I've missed something. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 17:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The inaccuracy is the ending sentence "This doesn't mean that you can take the material and then copyright it yourself. It's in the public domain and that's where I want it to stay", if I'm not mistaken, you can't make such statement when you have placed it in PD. Also, the license doesn't include provisions for events when public domain isn't a legal term in a country._→AzaToth 17:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I'm aware, he's essentially correct. You can't copyright a PD work. And, whether he wants it or not, this will remain in PD forever. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Esswential what he is saying is that even if you modify the work, you can't sub-license it. _→AzaToth 19:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not high enough quality. Pretty obvious artifacts. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Engaging image, perhaps wouldn't pass today on technicals, but that's not really a reason for a delist in my book. I may support a delist and replace if someone produces a better version, but until then I'm happy for this to stay. --jjron (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never understood the dual standards for FP candidates and delist candidates... We should only have one standard: FP standard. It either meets it or it doesn't, IMO... If our standards change, then our list of FPs should adjust for that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Valid point, but who's keeping tabs on all 1500+ FPs to weed them out every time a 'standard' changes? I'm also not too convinced our standards are that standard - a couple of year's back blown highlights were all the rage and any image with even a single blown pixel would be poleaxed. Now images regularly pass with blown highlights (not badly blown, but you get my point), and there's still plenty of FPs around with blown highlights. It annoys me how a number of people will get on their high horses about minor technical grizzles or support solely because an image is 'mindblowingly big', but ignore important issues like lack of EV. To get to the point, I don't think the technicals on this image are that bad, and find the EV and interest factor ('wow' if you like) greater than a lot of what is cruising through atm. --jjron (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have to say, I never understood the fixation with blown highlights either. As long as they're not too distracting (an entirely white sky is a bit off-putting, but if the actual subject is properly exposed then no major issue IMO - obviously a blown sky in a landscape photo is completely different), I don't oppose them. But then, you said you were tempted to oppose the Frieze of Parnassus image for 'almost' blown highlights in one of the four images when it is usually very difficult to avoid in a 360 degree view. I certainly see your other points, but I don't think that the 'mindblowingly big' FPs are usually lacking in EV. EV is often increased by the detail available to the viewer, but EV can come from many things. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yet I have seen supports - especially when these monsters were just coming into vogue - when people's sole reason for support was the huge size of the image, with no evaluation of any other aspect proffered. That's my point, not that big images are lacking EV per se, which of course is not the case, but that just being big doesn't give an unencyclopaedic image EV. Re the Frieze of Parnassus image, I'd say the north image with the close to blown sky is offputting enough to be opposable if being evaluated in isolation - especially as the white of the sculpture tends to blend into the background particularly at right - however it is acceptable if included as part of a single image collage, as in that case the overall pros and cons of the full image can be balanced out. For so-called featured sets I believe each image needs to be fully evaluated in isolation, and if any of them fail then the set fails - as you said above, no dual standards. If this isn't done we risk seeing more abominations like this. --jjron (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still a good quality image. Adam (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty much per Jjron, these delists are starting to get tiring, I'm not saying that we shouldn't delist at all but these are getting ridiculous. Cat-five - talk 01:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you find them ridiculous though? Jjron admitted that it likely wouldn't pass FP candidacy if nominated today. We're only trying to keep a healthy collection - bigger isn't necessarily better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 08:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]