From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh

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) reply

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

If you oppose delisitng to make it easier to read maybe putting Keep is better. -- Arad 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
"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) reply
I was just going to cite that (be accurate). 1ne 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 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) reply
    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) reply
    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) reply
    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) reply
  • Delist per not being accurate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delist. How did that slip though? -- Dschwen 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 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) reply
  • Delist. Sky is photoshpped and just looks terible and fake. Ursper
  • Delist per nom JanSuchy 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 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. howch e ng { chat} 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 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) reply
  • 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) reply

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh

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) reply

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

If you oppose delisitng to make it easier to read maybe putting Keep is better. -- Arad 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
"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) reply
I was just going to cite that (be accurate). 1ne 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 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) reply
    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) reply
    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) reply
    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) reply
  • Delist per not being accurate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delist. How did that slip though? -- Dschwen 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 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) reply
  • Delist. Sky is photoshpped and just looks terible and fake. Ursper
  • Delist per nom JanSuchy 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 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. howch e ng { chat} 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 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) reply
  • 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) reply

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


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook