Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Another Place3 edit2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2020 at 13:08:27 (UTC)

Reason: Blown highlights, zero detail in the sculpture—It may as well be three naked people standing on the beach for all the viewer can tell. The sculpture article already has closeups in daylight of the individual figures, giving the reader a much clearer perspective on what a portion of the work actually looks like up close. Thus, both the technical qualities and EV are lacking in this picture.
Articles this image appears in: Another Place (sculpture)
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Another Place3 edit2.jpg
Nominator: Veggies (talk)

Delist — Veggies (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist this looks like one of those old photos from the late 2000s; surely a better-composed picture of this sculpture can be obtained? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The criticisms of the nomination are valid. I think this is too much about getting an artsy shot and not enough about clearly depicting the subject to be encyclopedic. (To be fair, I think the same thing about many of my own shots. But then, I haven't tried listing any of them for FP...) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough support for delisting this image, and it's still used in Another Place (sculpture). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that I missed the voting for this nomination. This is objectively a very poor quality image and I find it hard to believe that this was ever selected as a FP. The photo's foreground is completely underexposed while the sky is blown out. I agree that this does a poor job of depicting the intended subject. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 04:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and above comment by mcshadypl pretty much sums up why I gave up with Wikipedia ~15 years ago not long after I uploaded the image - which was taken during the winter at sunset - hence the dark foreground, which was an accurate representation of what it actually looked like. 15 years ago there was a lot less content on wikipedia and digital cameras were in their infancy, having not long graduated from film at the time. Maybe it's an 'very poor quality image' and does a 'poor job of depicting the intended subject', however it's widely used on quite a number of various language wikipedias. Anyway, whatevs'. Maybe I'll log in to wikipedia again some time in the next 15 years. chowells (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]