Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kinner Kailash range and Kalpa

Kinner Kailash range and Kalpa edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2022 at 04:37:03 (UTC)

Original – Kinnaur Kailash range and the town of Kalpa, Himachal Pradesh

Reason: Majestic view of the Kinnaur Kailash range of the Greater Himalaya, and the town of Kalpa in Himachal Pradesh at dawn. Rare picture on commons showing a panaroma of the whole range.
Articles in which this image appears: Kalpa, Kinnaur district
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Anubhav Agarwal

Support as nominator – UnpetitproleX (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lighting, a little graininess is expected, and it's a stunning photo. Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 16:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to nomination; tangential commentary

*:‘’’Comment’’’ I only recently became aware of the nominator when they appeared on the Talk:Delhi page politely but insistently preferring what I thought were certain types of pictures of Delhi in the info box. They argued their points reasonably well but I had the sense that they preferred pictures where the poverty, the littered streets, the crowds, the filth were not visible. India ‘’is’’ a poor country. As someone who has been editing the FA India for nearly 16 years, where we generally prefer FPs, but ones that have encyclopedic information over vanilla prettiness of the long view, I would like to suggest that these pictures not be cut extra slack because South Asia is under represented in Featured Pictures.

You may also view other India-related FPs on my user talk page. I am not here vote, and I understand that FPC like FAC has its rules, but am concerned that the featured pictures be representative, that the nominator not appear at the India page tomorrow making the case that these pretty Himalayan or panoramic pictures are better representatives of India as a result of being featured than the more realistic ones, whether featured or not that are in place.
You must know there are editors such as Yann or Muhammad Mahdi Karim who have taken beautiful and encyclopedic pictures. Summing up standards here should not be lowered because South Asia is underrepresented or that a nominator (not necessarily the nominator of this picture) has seemingly boned up on Wikipedia rules and are prepared to argue their point. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So your point, if I understand correctly, is that the pictures be judged by FP standards, right? I fully agree with you, and in none of my nominations have I argued that standards be lowered for my nominations due to underrepresentation or any other reason. You can look at all of my nominations to confirm (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the current). I do know Yann and Karim, or for that matter also Tagooty, Satdeep, Subrajyoti and others, all of whose works I admire. I wish to one day emulate it and possibly have FPs of my own.

Also, It’s getting a bit absurd now. Stalking my contributions and then reverting them, now coming here on FPC, assuming motivations and making accusations based on that. What’s next? This obsessive policing bordering on harassment is not appreciated. And I would highly recommend using FPC talk page for discussions unrelated to the nominations. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not following you from page to page. You yourself mentioned the FPC submissions and came here to your work. My concern is genuine. Yann’s submissions don’t veer away from poor people or the disregarded such as tribals. We have his pictures on the India page for that reason. We had his picture of children eating puri and kheer in school on the India page for years; we still have his pictures in politics and sports, of girls playing hopscotch; they expose the reality, not cover it. It is the same with Karim he finds beauty in many forms and sizes from the three-striped squirrels to the Lucknow imambara. In your instance, though, from my brief experience with what you prefer in pictures, there seems to be a bias away from the nitty gritty reality to the broad vistas in which details can’t be seen.

I’m not suggesting there is anything wrong with your pictures; they have their place; but if other editors are giving easier passes to these pictures because the region is underrepresented, then they should be aware that generally unrepresentative pictures, which such pictures become in large numbers, don’t make a region better represented. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: A picture of a heap of garbage is not going to become FP unless it is exceptionally high in encyclopaedic value. For Commons:FP it will need to be artistically exceptional, and be among the best of pictures available there. In a recent nomination, trash flowing in a moat had to be cloned out for it to become FP. Such clean-ups are routine. My nominations so far have been of buildings and landscapes, I have yet to get to people or street photography. Please understand that everything need not have an ulterior motive. Do you realise how out of place this whole discussion looks to any uninvolved editor? I’m willing to cut you some slack given your circumstances at the moment, and I really do sympathise with you, but there is a limit. I am collapsing this wall of text. I will recommend you copy-paste it to FPC talk if you wish to continue. And you are welcome to vote here on this or any other nomination, based on its individual merit, support or oppose, or even comment—if the comment is about the actual nomination. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC) @TrangaBellam: Thank you for your support, it is appreciated, but could you strike out the latter part of your comment? I would like for this nomination to still stay on track and not become a debate on things unrelated, thanks UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Adam and in part, due to F&f's ridiculously orientalist arguments — lacking basis in any policy — which would have put Naipaul to shame. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that at the moment of writing TrangsBellam supports the picture in part they say because they oppose my arguments, but I have not voted Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This picture has been edited from another one, apparently to remove some text naming the peaks. I find that unobjectionable. But there are other editing artifacts that show up as well. The one it was edited from had what looks like a stitching artifact where the mountain background was brighter on one side of a pole in the lower left than on the other side; this has been reduced but not eliminated. And all of the mountain ridgetops have heavy black outlines, probably from too much unsharp mask. The nominator speaks above about blithely cloning out objects visible in scenes (unobjectionable when the subject is a person and the cloning is something irrelevant in background, but more problematic when the subject is the scene itself). Some odd bright red stains on the lower left edge have been replaced with odd grey-brown stains that are harder to spot. It makes me wonder how much more manipulation there is that I am not seeing. But it also makes me skeptical that this image is GA quality. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. The image has also had some red and blue chromatic aberrations removed, all edits performed by me. I’d just like to point out that removing objects that distract from the scene, correcting stitching errors, etc are routine, uncontroversial fixes. Especially in FP nominations, such fixes are frequently requested by the voters themselves. I can point to several nominations on both Commons:FPC and here where this is the case. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the cloning out remark was in reference to a particular previous nomination, not a “blithe” suggestion to indiscriminately clone out objects visible in scenes. :) UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Sorry but the composition doesn't work IMO. With all the sky on top, the village looks squeezed in the bottom (the framing looks unbalanced). The lighting and the bright sky makes everything look dark. Also, I am not sure about the pinkish sky, it looks a bit overdone or unnatural. Bammesk (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]