Commons:Featured picture candidates/FILE:Platanus.JPG

FILE:Platanus.JPG, not featured (FPX)

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 21:45:08

Info created by Tiago Fioreze - uploaded by Tiago Fioreze - nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the file is insufficiently identified, noisy, not sharp, oversaturated and probably suffers from perspective issues.

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure this justifies FPX template rather than simple Oppose. But I can't support it because I agree with Lycaon's comments. There should be a bit more detail of the leaves of at least one tree, but these are disappointing. I am wondering whether there is a general fault with the recent crop of cameras, that they offer 7 to 10 Mpx images with 4 to 5 Mpx optics? We did not see the problems before because the image resolution masked it. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is an unnecessary FPX template. I would agree with an oppose opinion about this photo regarding sharpness and noisiness. Apart from insufficient file data (?), I don't think the other factors (saturation and perspective issues) are a problem. It's a personal choice. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Identification is insufficient actually means that the trees should be identified (scientifically) to species level as they are the main topic of the photograph. IMO FPX is justifiable for any of the major shortcomings (i.e. id) and the others are just corroborating issues. Lycaon (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Identification is not required for featured pictures, unlike quality pictures. →Diti the penguin — 11:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Id is always required if an organism is the main topic of the image. Mitigation can be given (→generic level) for difficult stuff like some insects or composites, but never for organisms like e.g. birds or trees. Lycaon (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Lycaon is right. A FP should be perfect regarding an ID, propper file name & description. These pictures will be POTD someday and are the best of the best what Commons offers out there. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for the info Lycaon, you should put it on the nomination requirements. :) →Diti the penguin — 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tiago, please don't remove nominations from the candidate list as long they are not closed propperly and being archived. You can apply the '''{{withdraw}}''' template if you want to to cut your nomination short. Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, Richard. When I read that after 24 hours, if no contrary views on the FPX template would be made, the nomination should be closed. I misunderstood that I should remove it. I will apply the withdraw template instead. Thanks for the info. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (FPX). D-Kuru (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]