Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Farmer plowing.jpg

Farmer ploughing

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 01:44:16 (UTC)

Reason: This image was promoted in 2004. I first noticed this image in November 2006, and nominated it for delisting, mainly because it didn't meet the size requirements. A higher resolution version was found, but I was still surprised that it was kept. It was nominated for delisting again in November 2008 by Diego pmc, but was kept. I recently came across this image again, and I really don't think it meets today's standards. It's a good depiction of ploughing, but there are a few issues which I feel stop it from being a featured picture. The lighting is not perfect - It looks like a fairly overcast day. Much of the image appears fairly soft, not perfectly in focus. There are blown highlights on the rightmost upper edge of the white horse. Finally, the view of the ploughing apparatus is obscured by the horses. This is not difficult to reproduce, and I think we could do better.
Articles this image appears in: Many. It's used in Plough, Template:Agriculture and Template:WikiProject Agriculture.
Previous nomination/s: FPC promotion, First delist nomation, Second delist nomination
Nominator: Mahahahaneapneap (talk)

Delist — Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. A nice picture, but somewhat below the current FP bar. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per last time; as I said then "Good shot, well composed" - still applies. Good EV and very widely used; more than makes up for minor technical issues. And not difficult to reproduce? Hmmm, now when was the last time I saw someone using horses to hand-plough a field? Well, that would be never. FWIW focus is on the white horse. Let's see "better" before we delist ... (the "we could do better" argument is a pet peeve of mine – of course we could do better, you can say that about anything; it's meaningless!). --jjron (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very good photo, FP for me -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not an expert, but I've had a think about this: there is something about this photo that reminds me of 35mm film, perhaps its the colour saturation (although I realise after looking at the info table that it was taken with a sub-professional Canon digital camera). I'm not sure that this is even a criticism, perhaps it just adds a little nostalgia to what is a really good rustic photograph in many ways. TehGrauniad (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --ka ʁs tn 14:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still good enough quality to be considered FP quality, relevant to its article and depicts the subject well. You have every right to keep nominating this ad-infinitum but I'll suggest that if this nom fails just let it be, it'll be a clear sign that consensus favors keeping this image and that it hasn't changed and probably isn't changing anytime soon. Cat-five - talk 19:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: mostly what Jjron said. Maedin\^talk 08:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]