Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4)-edit3.jpg

Chris Young

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 02:11:54 (UTC)

Reason: The pitcher is less sharp than the audience behind, giving him a weird "Photoshopped" look (obviously it's not, I'm just using the metaphor to describe what it looks like). It is visible at preview size and even more obvious at 100%.
Articles this image appears in: Chris Young (pitcher), Wrigley Field, Starting pitcher, etc.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4).JPG
Nominator: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠

Delist — King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist wrong focus, too short focal length with a too closed aperture → poor DOF, image a bit soft, face in shadow. Nice dynamic though. --ka ʁs tn 09:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I've got to agree, I'm not wild about this. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The quality's not fantastic, but it's OK. It's not correct to say the focus is on the crowd - look at his legs - it's just that the upper part of his body is a bit motion blurred. DOF issues are largely due to it being taken with a compact. --jjron (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator & creator now notified. Does everyone simply ignore that instruction (and common courtesy) now?? --jjron (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I knew this day was coming, but not this soon. The argument for this image was always its high EV. It continues to be the lead image on 5 pages (Four-seam fastball, Fastball, Starting pitcher, Chris Young (pitcher), All-Star Final Vote) 4 years later. There probably should be special considerations for such images. I think it is a solid keeper for 2 or 3 of those lead positions. Additionally, it remains in 5 other articles: (Bullpen, History of Wrigley Field, Pitcher, Scoreboard, Wrigley Field). I understand that quality requirements have increased, but I think the encyclopedic merits of this image continue to warrant its inclusion among WPs finest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Listing lots of articles does not prove the EV. If we accept as that this picture is somewhat lacking quality-wise, what role does it serve to fill that could not be filled by something else, and is of extremely high value to a reader? J Milburn (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur that listing lots of articles does not prove EV. The point is that it is the main image 4 years later in 5 articles. I think this delist is somewhat premature. It will likely be replaced as the lead image (but remain in the article) of his own bio since he has changed teams. In time it may be replaced at All-Star Final Vote and Fastball. However, its high EV comes from Four-seam fastball and Starting pitcher. This is about as good a view as we are going to see of an action shot for a Four-seam fastball because most live shots will be 10x as far away even if they are higher quality images. Thus, the view of the grip will not be as good. Also, the Starting pitcher shot showing the scoreboard so visibly in the background to demonstrate that the game is clearly about to start (as per the caption) is also a very high EV shot. This image should remain as an FP until it is replaced as the lead image in at least a couple of its current uses by superior shots, IMO. Consider carefully its EV at Four-seam fastball and Starting pitcher, which is very high and not likely to be replaced since most professional-caliber photographers at games don't release images and this is a unique perspective of both. EV remains very high even though this is a below average FP in terms of technical merits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Action sports photography at stadiums is double-tough for volunteer contributors. They’re in the stands whereas the pros are out front, often with privileged angles unavailable to the public. I’ve very seldom seen action sports photography on Wikipedia that, as a class, is up the standards that other genres achieve on Wikipedia. If we want these sports action shots to be contributed to the project, we have to keep the contribution process rewarding and fun (it’s an all-volnunteer collaborative writing project) and cut this genre some slack so that one’s contribution receiving FP status seems readily achievable. Going about delisting pictures is not how we do that.
The real test of whether this picture deserves delisting is whether another action picture of Chris Young comes along that gets through the FPC process. I just looked the Chris Young (pitcher) article and this picture still headlines the article. Until there is a clearly better action shot to use in the article (one with the sunlight on his face and zoomed tighter), this one still clearly encyclopedically illustrates the article and apparently does so better than anything else we have at the moment. So I’d suggest we not busy ourselves second-guessing ourselves (the FPC community awarded it FP status for apparently good reason the first time around) until volunteer contributors can do better than this. Keeping it fun and rewarding with the prospect of winning an award, of sorts, for the effort: That is how we encourage quality contributions. Greg L (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep The EV of this is high. It is one of the best images of Chris Young we have; however, his arm and uniform are a tad blurry. I would have used a shutter speed of 1000 or 2000 instead of 640. I would like the focus to be more on him, but, it is one of the best images in its particular genre. Sometimes we need to judge each genre separately. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]