Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Front View of George Washington Masonic National Memorial.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Front View of George Washington Masonic National Memorial.jpg (delist), not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 10:54:47
Front View of George Washington Masonic National Memorial

  •  Delist - I think this one is not sharp enough, though well-composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Pofka, I have no idea what you are talking about when you bring up "double standards". I certainly do have different standards for whether to support a new nomination vs. whether to vote to delist an existing FP. Yes, that is a double standard, and I think it's a justified one, because unless a photo is an obvious case for delisting, I'd rather we not spend the time looking at and thinking about it, when we could instead look at new nominees. You seem to disagree, but I don't really know what axe you're grinding or why. All of us nominate photos that don't get voted in as FPs, and in most cases, the folks who are nominating actually took the photo, so they should presumably be more likely to have hurt feelings when people find fault with their work, but most regulars here take things more in stride than you seem to be at the moment. I have no idea what you're dealing with in your own life, but if you're finding it painful or upsetting to be on FPC, taking a bit of time off to refresh yourself could be a good thing. No pressure, your choice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ikan Kekek: When I nominate pictures or support nominations for years I also compare it with other pictures in the category. What chances this image would have if I nominated it now? It would be like 99% oppose. So how it can be "This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images."? With all that grain and blurry details this picture certainly is not one of the finest images in the Commons. -- Pofka (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, I agree with you. But while it definitely makes sense to compare photos to existing FPs, if you're comparing photos with FPs from 2008, you should be careful, and moreover, you're always on firmer ground when a photo you nominate is either clearly superior to existing FPs and/or has some kind of extra quality that makes it striking or especially beautiful. That may not be the way you want it to be, but it's practical. We are never going to go through all of the old FPs and delist the ones that aren't up to current standards. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ikan Kekek: Well, articles in Wikipedia are falling like autumn leafs from Good article / Featured article status, so why it should be different with Good Images / Featured images? With these arguments you just presented English Wikipedia would still have GA/FA about countries and other subjects articles where a comprehensive description is required with ~5 sections and a few references because it was fine in early ~2000, but nowadays such articles receives warning templates and might even be deleted. So when we have such clear steps about GA/FA denominations I see absolutely no logic to protect images which are absolutely not up to date with the nowadays technologies. This image is a very, very clear example of that and as I already mentioned to another person in this discussion: just try comparing sky in this EXAMPLE I took with my former 2012 smartphone in 2013, which produces quite rubish images nowadays, with sky in Front View of George Washington Masonic National Memorial.jpg and you will notice that it is a poor quality even for a 2011 image which was produced with a large sensor DSLR. -- Pofka (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ikan Kekek: Different languages Wikipedias also have separate logins, however they all delist articles which are outdated from GA/FA status. FA: "DNA is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." does that remind something? Text in the FP template says that "is considered one of the finest images", so it means that it is currently one of the best images here (which you agreed is false). There is a separate category called "Former featured pictures", which is way more suitable for outdated FPs. Article Commons:Image guidelines#Quality and featured photographic images clearly states issues that are unacceptable for GIs/FPs and this image clearly violates the "Noise" rule. -- Pofka (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to continue ignoring practical questions. This isn't Wikipedia and has just enough membership to pass FPs, and not enough to remove hundreds of old FP designations. For that reason, it makes every bit of sense to have tough standards for removing stars. We don't want to encourage people to waste lots of time. Except that you do want to waste lots of time. Now. Just because you didn't like one photo you nominated being voted down. Sorry, I know that sounds harsh, but that's how it seems to me. And I don't plan on spending more time in this discussion; I've said my piece. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak keep - not seeing any real reason for delisting. Delisting isn't for files that wouldn't pass today. It's also not for files that might pass on a Tuesday but not next Wednesday. That this passed but your recent nomination didn't might mean standards have increased, but can also mean that different people were there, or that too many similar things have been nominated lately, or that the wind is blowing a different direction, or it's just not meant to be. Delisting other images because of that just seems pointy. — Rhododendrites talk |  04:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Unapealing to go through the old FPs, if they still meet today's standards. If they did in former times, it should be enough, unless there is a clear wrong decision. I can not recognize that here. --Milseburg (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Milseburg: How can it meet today's standards when you can see "snow" in the clear summer sky? My old smartphone from 2012, which I do not use anymore for years, produced similar amount of grain (EXAMPLE), so I am kind of surprised that this image passed in 2011 and have such quality issues even if it probably was taken with a large sensor DSLR. -- Pofka (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 5 delist, 7 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. MZaplotnik(talk) 15:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/removal/File:Front_View_of_George_Washington_Masonic_National_Memorial.jpg&oldid=374843279"