Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Petrified Wood

Petrified Wood

Reason: Quite frankly this image no longer has the image and techinal quality to be considered an FP. The lighting is harsh and I find that the item in the top right-hand corner is distracting. Composition is poor and it just doesn't seem to be an image that we can continue to consider as being featured
Nominator: Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?}

Delist — Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suspend until creator (and optionally nominator since it's by a Wikipedian but wasn't a self-nom, though I think the nominator is long gone anyway) are notified about delist, as per clearly stated instructions. --jjron (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Notification done. --jjron (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per reasons mentioned above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no wow. Mangostar (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist harsh lighting, not up to FP standards anymore. Spencer^T♦^C 19:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~. It has a combination of flaws - composition, apparent sharpness (motion blur? shot without stabiliser?), DOF; lighting is not the greatest worry here. I also think that such a large mineral could and should be shot/uploaded at a higher resolution. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Neutral upon higher res version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you see motion blur? And a stabilizer in the scorching dessert sun??!! --Dschwen 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There does appear to be some spherical aberration in the top left and (more so) in the top right hand sides of the image. I think that is what PLW was referring to. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harsh lighting is a judgment call; the pic was obviously taken in full sunlight in a natural setting. Yes, it's bright, but the strength of the light is natural and helps reveal the detail and colour involved. I don't think what we're seeing here is motion blur, but mostly shallow DOF, which I don't think is terribly important given that the important depth is the depth that's in focus. Delist this one after we get a better one, IMO; it's not embarrassing itself against our other FPs. Matt Deres (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's ARIZONA. The light's going to be very bright and harsh by default. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the lighting is natural, i don't see it as an issue for de-listing --Kalyan (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Composition. Crop is too tight, angle leaves something to be desired. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
harsh lighting is a bad joke, this is the Arizona sun. *shakes head*. It is sharp and has little noise. I'd tend to agree with Matt Deres. You'd have to delist a hell of a lot more FPs if this goes down. Keep. --Dschwen 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I uploaded a new larger version. Which by the way purges and re-renders all resized versions, which look sharper now... --Dschwen 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe it wouldn't quite pass today, but maybe it would. Definitely isn't so flawed as to merit delisting.--ragesoss (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --NauticaShad es 21:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]