Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh delist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh[edit]

Edit A for replacement

The colours look very fake, it was probably processed a lot on photoshop to reach this state. It fails the "Featured picture criteria 5": Be accurate. bogdan 21:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nominate and delist. bogdan 21:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment There is extensive content pertinent to this discussion in this images FPC nom: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hills of Kurdistan Province HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist elephants weep. This has had more photoshopping than ... well I don't know. Just look at it. The clouds man, the clouds! In the sky! o______O - Francis Tyers · 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is also some discussion at its talk page bogdan 21:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist While some playing with color levels etc is obviously OK, this crosses the line into "photoillustration". This clearly fails Featured picture criteria 5: "Be accurate". --Dgies 22:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While some saturation modification is evident I have seen scenes with my own eyes that seem saturated beyond realism. Could the original author be contacted to clarify what modifications have been made? The sharp edges on the cloud do indicate some sort of significant modification. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Go here to get in touch with the photographer and see some other examples of photoshopping. He has some other pictures that might be "good" if not "featured" status, but this one has no business appearing on the WP front page. ~ trialsanderrors 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Looks like photoshopping to me. I say delist straight away, if it turns out to be real later on it can always have another shot on the front page. My guess though is that it will stay on for the duration of front page, which is a shame. Sad mouse 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy Delist This isn't just a variation of saturation and color levels, this is a third rate masking job per my comments at the talk page. We're Wikipedia, not the Idiot's Guide to Photoshopping. ~ trialsanderrors 23:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hard not to put any bias in this: Would you mind visiting this page a little more often to comment on the nominations? --Dschwen 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't really have much reason to question the judgement of the editors so far, but I'll stick around. ~ trialsanderrors 08:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom and others. 1ne 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist Yep, it's the clouds; especially noticeable on the right. -- tariqabjotu 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. This never should have been promoted in the first place. During the nomination period I recall mentioning which edit was reasonable in terms of saturation and post-processing, but IIRC the edits kept changing and I don't think the realistic one remained to be promoted at the end. -- Moondigger 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose delisting Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? does not say that image must be "natural". -- Petri Krohn 02:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If you oppose delisitng to make it easier to read maybe putting Keep is better. --Arad 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I bet you opponents are all Linux users, and just do not like this "lame" wallpaper. -- Petri Krohn 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What the hell? I don't use Linux... 1ne 03:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I am making a far feteched guess that mabye you are refering to the windows cloud image? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"Be natural" is not a criteria, but "Be accurate" IS, and hypersaturated colors, flat-colored sky, and sharp clouds do not accurately represent the subject. --Dgies 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I was just going to cite that (be accurate). 1ne 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment By looking at the photographer's Flikr site, it looks like the original was this: Image:IR.Kurdistan.jpg. It had oversaturated color and blown highlights in the clouds. The edited version which made FP tried to fix the blown highlights and introduce a faux-HDR. The result is messed up clouds, and still funny colors. --Dgies 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    That picture appears to be not only oversaturated, but also changed the hues with photoshop. (as can be seen with the violet sky) bogdan 08:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    Its a shame because I bet the original (as in before that guy photoshopped it) would be quite nice. - Francis Tyers · 09:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    The original already has the masked sky (see Image:Maskedsky.jpg). Oversaturation isn't as much of a problem, as it's somewhat reversible, but if you just paint over parts of the picture you can't fix the damage. ~ trialsanderrors 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per not being accurate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. How did that slip though? --Dschwen 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist Oversaturated colors, completely blown areas in clouds, grainy landscape. Dschwen is right, were we all on vacation when that went through? --Bridgecross 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Sky is photoshpped and just looks terible and fake. Ursper
  • Delist per nom JanSuchy 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I don't know why I didn't vote on it when it was originally up, but when I was writing the POTD, I scrutinized the nomination to see if it had been promoted incorrectly. howcheng {chat} 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delist - I don't know where you lot were when I seemed to be the only person opposing first time round! I agree it may once have been a good image (although I suspect it wasn't a perfect exposure even to begin with) but whatever the photographer did to it in post-processing has made it pretty horrible. I seem to remember that this image attracted a lot of support from people with an apparent Iranian connection who don't usually vote here (and didn't vote on other noms at the time), which made me think "vote stacking", but I couldn't find any direct evidence of this. If I'd realised how much support the delisting would get, I'd have put it up earlier - shame it had to make it onto the main page first. --YFB ¿ 07:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually you always oppose so, no wonder you were the only one. ;-) --Arad 17:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think your smiley makes that an appropriate comment. To say I always oppose is completely untrue, (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (see, I even agree with you sometimes), 7, 8, 9, 10) - I think perhaps I just expect higher standards from FPs than you do? Anyway, I think the other votes here speak for themselves. --YFB ¿ 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • hahaha. It's not that bad!. --Arad 21:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Very nifty look, I'd love to see a video game adopt that surreal color, but of course totally inappropriate for FP --frothT C 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)