Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wolf spider attack position

Wolf spider attack position[edit]

Reason: Fails resolution "guideline", out of focus or blurry in places (motion?), flash reflection off eyes. Sorry, Fir, but you've had better pics (I still love the focus bracket one). --Here T oHelp 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Here T oHelp

Delist — Here T oHelp 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nom. ^8thstar 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist very muddy for some reason. -Fcb981 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Technical flaws are trivial, and are trumped by composition and interesting subject matter. --Bagginz 14:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say I cant tell if this is a hole in the ground a notch in a vertical clif or the roof of a cave. -Fcb981 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hole in the ground because of the position of the egg sac (I don't think mommy is holding it up with a her rear against gravity). And technical flaws are only trivial if the subject is irreplaceable; there are more wolf spiders out there.--Here T oHelp 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all of User:Bagginz's contributions consist of voting Keep in delist nominations. --YFB ¿ 03:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bagginz still has a good point. Not every image is going to be used at high resolution so why delist images solely on that ground? It's still encyclopedic, interesting and composed. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeeeeeeyup, and don't feel you have to whisper it. I suppose as a long time reader of this page, I jump in to vote Keep because I get mildly annoyed with technical nitpicking on worthy and deservedly recognized contributions.

Still, since we're in the mood to check up on what people have been up to, I have a question for HereToHelp. Given that the creator of the photo in question, Fir0002, is easily one the most respected and honored contributors to this forum, don't you think that he deserves the courtesy, and you the obligation, of your mention on his talk page that you've nominated his picture for delisting? --Bagginz 06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember someone saying something about nitpicking -Fcb981 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the the talk page note (no, I don't dispute the quality of Fir's contributions), I suspected that he would browse the page enough to find this (or does he browse this section as often?). If you like, seeing as he has not commented here, and I can still post a note.--Here T oHelp 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delist - Poor image quality (soft, artifacts), low resolution, harsh lighting, plenty of better images. --YFB ¿ 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it's impossible to shut off the sun, so the lighting isn't his fault. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to read up on this then ;-). --Dschwen 11:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, sorry fir but the nom is right. Witty Lama 11:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]