Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gelabi

Jelabi[edit]

Reason: Good quality image showing Jelabi, an Indian food
Articles this image appears in: Jalebi
Creator: Original uploader was Haroldandkumar at en.wikipedia

Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Way too blurry, very noisy, and the flash is awful. And again, it is not an FP worthy subject. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what you point out by saying "blurry" and "noisy"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry means the image is blurry. Noisy means it is grainy, or there are spots on the camara's lense, or something similar. The word Noise implys unwanted or excess'. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Noisy" never means there are spots on the camera's lens. Nor does "noisy" imply "excess," though for FPC purposes it is undesireable. Dust or spots on a camera lens are much too far outside either focal plane to show up as such in the photo. "Noise" is non-image data, typically , a characteristic side-effect of many image sensors. That said, I agree this image is flawed and not FP-worthy. -- Moondigger (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I can not call myself an expert at imagery, and you know better than I do what the term implys. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 00:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How you are saying this image blurry? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to explain. If you look at the image, it is "blurry" around the edges mostly. I don't know how else to explain. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were making a DOF statement, refering to the fact that the subject isn't all in sharp focus.

Oppose I could go on, but the worst part is the amount of flash reflection.D-rew (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on technical grounds. Oversaturated, blown highlights, etc. -- Moondigger (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Óppose- 19 failing nominations should be a clue here. Please stop nominating things until you understand the criteria. It is pretty clear that you don't at the moment. pschemp | talk 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - poor composition, obtrusive flash; not of a high technical standard. TSP (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Moondigger. Cacophony (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close no chance of promotion. Muhammad(talk) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. Please please please browse through some of the current feature pictures. Try to get a sense of their clarity, artistry, and encyclopedic relevance. --Bridgecross (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close As per speedy above Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close As per speedy above. Dengero (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose :D\=< (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]