Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Layers of titan.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Layers of titan.jpg, not delisted[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 21:15:30
Info Reason to delist (Original nomination)
Technical issues
- It is a compressed JPEG
- Aliased text
- Pixelated texture on the Decoupled outer shell and the Ice IV shell
- Horrible compression on Titan's southern hemisphere
- Blurry probe image
Artistic problems
- Cheap lens flares
- Sun position makes no sense, in addition shading is inconsistent between Saturn, the probe, and Titan. (light is coming from in front, but Titan is shaded from the left, the probe from the right, and Saturn from the front-left)
- Unrealistic stars
- Poor render quality of the layers
- 3D positions are inaccurate—Saturn and Titan do not appear to be on the same plane.
- Cropped pole sticking out of the probe is disturbing
Delist — Kelvinsong (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)- Delist — Kruusamägi (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delist — B.p. 21:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delist JKadavoor Jee 06:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep IMHO the delisting procedure started here from some "lead users" is from my viewpoint not OK. Because of the page's position the delisting candidates get much less attention than the FP candidates - delisting through a backdoor because some users do not like this image afterwards. For me it is not a good idea to delist a FP after less than a year. Votes should be accepted even if they are not from lead users (in May 2012 there were 7 pro and one neutral vote) - otherwise the whole voting process is useless. None of the delisters here were involved in the former voting. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that (in this case) we have not enough reviewers for graphical works. So many of the votes are (including me) just "filler votes" to make the quorum based on the arguments of a few real reviewers. I think the current nominator is a good graphic designer to whom we can depend. Do you disagree with any argument he raised? The position of the delist part in this page is not good; hardly any visibility. JKadavoor Jee 11:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I must confess (same as you) that I cannot make qualified assesments for graphical work (the reason why I normally do not vote pro or contra for them). My keep-vote was merely against the process initiated here. The given arguments against the illustration seem plausbile (but too late). IMHO it is not really fair towards the creator or former nominator. Another reason for keeping might be that here on Commons is currently no alternative to this illustration thus it has a high EV and has generated a high "Wow" for former reviewers. Delisting an FP candidate with 7 Pro (on 0 contra) votes after less than one year devaluates the assesments of the former reviewers. From my perspective of a layman the bad quality of the text with its hard edges and the unsharpness of the satellite is disturbing. Assumed the reviewer on FPC are not competent enough it might be better to have a separate excellent illustration or excellent graphical work and to restrict FPC to photographs. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the point it is not really fair towards the creator or former nominator. But in this case (only in this case) the creator is just (?) an organisation who has no (?) feelings. The nominator is not responded so far. I can't fully agree with the point on keep since no alternative to this illustration is available because sometimes we have to delist one inferior one to maintain the reputation (?) of COM:FP. JKadavoor Jee 17:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I must confess (same as you) that I cannot make qualified assesments for graphical work (the reason why I normally do not vote pro or contra for them). My keep-vote was merely against the process initiated here. The given arguments against the illustration seem plausbile (but too late). IMHO it is not really fair towards the creator or former nominator. Another reason for keeping might be that here on Commons is currently no alternative to this illustration thus it has a high EV and has generated a high "Wow" for former reviewers. Delisting an FP candidate with 7 Pro (on 0 contra) votes after less than one year devaluates the assesments of the former reviewers. From my perspective of a layman the bad quality of the text with its hard edges and the unsharpness of the satellite is disturbing. Assumed the reviewer on FPC are not competent enough it might be better to have a separate excellent illustration or excellent graphical work and to restrict FPC to photographs. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that (in this case) we have not enough reviewers for graphical works. So many of the votes are (including me) just "filler votes" to make the quorum based on the arguments of a few real reviewers. I think the current nominator is a good graphic designer to whom we can depend. Do you disagree with any argument he raised? The position of the delist part in this page is not good; hardly any visibility. JKadavoor Jee 11:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment About 3D positions. Titan is up to .3 deg of from Saturns equator which in turn is up to 26.7 deg of from its ecliptic. Since the camera position is so close to Titan relative to Saturn it doesn't have to become a perfect plane. Averater (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results: Result: 4 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
