Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Atlantic Spadefish PLW edit.jpg

Atlantic Spadefish

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2012 at 18:39:39 (UTC)

Reason

Bad flash highlights (blown areas on both fish)
Awkward crop (too much space above and below, hanging tail on right edge, end of subject fish's tail cut off.
~~Chromatic abberation around head of background fish~~
Artifacting, either from jpg compression or too much NR, under head of background fish

~~#Possibly should not have passed original nom, as I count 5 Supports and 3 opposes (not a 2/3 majority).~~

Articles this image appears in: Atlantic Spadefish
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atlantic Spadefish.jpg
Nominator: Clegs (talk)

Delist — Clegs (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have notified the original nominator. Creator is not on WP. Clegs (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You could read the closing statement [1] and/or note that one of the opposes was specific to the original. I suggest striking that part of your opening statement. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the composition/crop is quite charming, and while this isn't the most technically super-awesome picture on Wikipedia (not that I'm buying your overexposure argument- these are scaley shiny fish, and the overexposed areas are small) there is a good amount of EV here. As PLW points out, the original closure looks sound. Note that I voted twice, once in opposition to the original, once in support of this version; only two vote in opposition to the either (with one in opposition to only the original), while two support either, and three (one being the nominator) support only the edit. It's five for and two against the edit, which is more than two thirds in support. J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. My embarrassment at this being on the front page a couple days ago remains. If a picture with this much artifacting came through today, we would shoot it down in flames. Clegs (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I'm not really sure of your use of the word "artefacting" - normally, we use that to refer to jpeg artefacts, which look different from what I can find in this picture, and JPEG quality here is a respectable 93%. In fact, I now think that all of your remaining claims about image quality are false: (1) I can't see any traces of denoising in the original, and there was none done in the edit. (2) I can see no chromatic aberration, although, if present, it is now trivial to fix. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can't see the purple fringing all across the front of the second fish? Clegs (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I'll apply the filter, but I still mostly see a purple and yellow fish swimming behind. In a scene like this, genuine CA would usually show up in more than one place. ~~Uploading...~~ Done. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JJ Harrison (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per J Milburn. Dusty777 16:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept —Julia\^talk 10:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]