Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Chaga hut.jpg

File:Chaga hut noadj.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 13:51:14 (UTC)

Reason: Not only was there an exceptionally weak/poor consensus to promote this image originally, but it just genuinely doesn't strike me as meeting Criterion 3 – it's a fairly uninspiring and drearily-coloured shot of someone moving about outside a hut. Seriously, Wikipedia has much better than this IMHO!
Articles this image appears in: Chaga people and Hut (dwelling)
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Chaga hut.jpg
Nominator: ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢

Delist — ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 13:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I really don't like the overexposed sky, and that discussion would certainly not be closed as a promote today (not that that we should be retrospectively applying that rule to old discussions, of course). I'd be interested in hearing what Muhammad has to say. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I was on the verge of opening this discussion myself. Obviously Muhammad, you are one of our best photographers, but this one really doesn't do it for me. The blown highlights at top pretty much spill into the top half of the image and kill the photo for me. I don't think this should have ever been promoted. No offense meant to you, of course, Muhammad. upstate NYer 22:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When the image was promoted, there was some objection raised on the talk page and it was decided that had the unedited version been nominated since the beginning, the image would have passed without difficulty. Regarding the blown highlights, quoting one of our most recognized photographers, this is what Diliff said,"I don't think the blown sky is that important. It would be nice if it wasn't, but I've shot in forests quite often and it is nearly impossible to retain detail in the sky when properly exposing for the forest floor.". Additionally, the image has very high EV and is the only image of the subject on wiki. Another photographer Dschwen said, "I find this way more interesting than the umpteenth insect macro". The extensive caption on the image page shows that the image is not just of another hut but a whole set of customs and traditions that are associated with the Chaga culture. --Muhammad(talk) 03:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further proof that the image is not a drab; usually my macro pictures get around 10k visitors when they are POTD. This hut image received 19k visitors! It received almost twice the average visitors for the two days preceding it. Had it been a boring image, I am sure it would have gotten less not more. --Muhammad(talk) 03:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are surely not determining the 'featured' status of images by how many visits they get, now, are we? ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 08:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is hilarious. You skip over everything I say and then point out that little bit? You stated that the image didn't meet criterion 3, I in turn ask you, if it is not amongst wikipedia's best works, then why did it get more page views than other of wikipedia's best works? And the page views are just a side by statistic. How many images of Chaga huts do you find on wikipedia? Criterion 3 clearly states that images need not be aesthetically pleasing, "it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative". --Muhammad(talk) 09:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is hilarious. Well, I'm glad you're enjoying it. if it is not amongst wikipedia's best works, then why did it get more page views than other of wikipedia's best works? The admins' noticeboard gets more page views than many featured images, but it is not among Wikipedia's best works: quite the reverse, in fact! How many images of Chaga huts do you find on wikipedia? I've not looked, actually, because this piece of information is irrelevant. Images do not automatically become 'featured' simply because they depict something not shown in any other image on-wiki. And furthermore, the image neither shocks, impresses nor particularly informs me. And that presumably goes for the others who have commented here. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 09:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am sorry that you don't find the image informative. During the nomination, the reviewers clearly found it quite informative. Regarding the rarity, again quoting criterion 3, "Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all". I have no doubt this image meets criterion 3, but you have the right to your opinion and I will respect that. --Muhammad(talk) 10:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be misinterpreting "unique" – the criterion (listing it alongside "historical images") was clearly referring to an image which is necessarily unique in general; for example, if only one photograph was ever taken of King George III, then it is obviously the only one that it exists at all, and no more could ever be created. Your picture, while it so happens that Wikipedia does not have any others at the moment, is almost certainly not the only image of a Chaga hut in existence, and even if it is, anybody could go and take a new one at any time. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 10:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say we do get a new image in the future, how would it be less "fairly uninspiring and drearily-coloured shot"? --Muhammad(talk) 11:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you seem to be assuming that every topic is entitled to a featured image. So if we get a new photo, which is equally uninspiring and dreary – then that shouldn't be a featured picture either. Not a good argument for featuring this particular image. ~~Secondly, you seem to be assuming that you have taken the best possible image of a Chaga hut (ie. "How would anyone else's picture possibly be any better?") which seems no little amount vain.~~ ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 16:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't imply any vanity. I simply wonder how a picture can be more colorful if the subject isn't. Perhaps next time I should visit the place with a paintbrush and some rainbow paints ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I take that part back. As for your wondering how a picture can be more colorful if the subject isn't – perhaps you're right. Of course, the composition and the exposure could be improved, but that's all beside the point: it would only matter if 'featured' status was automatically granted to the best image of any given subject. But in fact, it is only given to outstanding images, and if it is not possible to capture an outstanding image of a Chaga hut then that's OK, and it doesn't get featured status. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist if for nothing else than for the weak composition. Nergaal (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because this discussion was never resolved but should have resulted in a delisting because promotion conditions weren't met. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ?? --Muhammad(talk) 11:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - !! --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Sorry Muhammad, I find myself agreeing with the reasoning above. The picture isn't really blowing me away. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for apologies. A delist of one of my images was bound to happen. I am just glad all my insects are safe ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 11:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This image just doesn't strike me as FP quality.... — raeky t 23:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]