Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-crested Pochard delist

Red-crested Pochard

Another image which isn't terrible by any means, but I'm pretty sure that if nominated now this would be almost unanimously opposed; we simply have plenty of much higher-quality bird photos and this one, although a workmanlike enough shot, is certainly no longer an example of Wikipedia's best photography. There's a lot of noise/dithering and the slow shutter speed at a long telephoto setting (1/60s, 400mm) has introduced noticeable motion blur. Has been on the main page once in June 2005.

Nominate for delisting --YFB ¿ 03:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a good picture. It just needs a tad bit of touching up. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This image has already been 'touched up' during its nomination; it is impossible to recover detail which is not already present in an image so the motion blur is unfixable. This version has already had some noise reduction and any more would most likely make it unacceptably soft. --YFB ¿ 16:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep True there is motion blur, but the composition of the bird and the reflections is so attractive that I want to keep it. --Bridgecross 14:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the outcome of Wikipedia Talk:Featured picture candidates#Delisting, please remember that when considering a nomination for delisting, the image should be compared to the current featured picture criteria. If you would not support this image as a new nomination then you should consider voting to delist. --YFB ¿ 16:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The water is really unattractive, and not much detail showing on the bird. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Attractive image which does not contain major flaws necessitating delisting --Fir0002 02:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fir, would you mind elaborating on your reasons for keeping (beside your well-documented opinion on delistings in general)? --YFB ¿ 23:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --YFB ¿ 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Still needs some touch ups but after that I think it will be a keeper. --¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 05:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Ack YFB, the fullsize looks blurry. Would be shot down instantly today. --Dschwen 11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noclip 05:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate - what is your rationale for voting to keep this image? --YFB ¿ 23:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems that warrant delisting. Noclip 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. --YFB ¿ 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The duck looks fine to me, but I get a strong whiff of Photoshopping from the water surface, which looks more like oil slick than water. ~ trialsanderrors 09:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's a pretty duck but the water looks unnatural --⁪froth^{T C} 21:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attractive image, no major problems -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per YFB and antilived. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retained as FP Raven4x4x 01:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]