Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Tulip - floriade canberra.jpg

Tulipa suaveolens floriade to Canberra.jpg edit

Cultivated tulip at Floriade 2005

Reason: Lack of background diffusion, distracting background elements (including flower that harms clarity of side of focal point flower), therefore I beleive it doesn't meet criteria 1 of FP "Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements."
Previous nomination/s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Tulip
Nominator: Capital photographer (talk)

Delist — Capital photographer (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is required to notify the original nominator of a delist nomination (User:Fir0002). I suggest you do that, it also would be good to notify the photographer, User:Jjron. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets all criteria. "including flower the harms clarity of side of focal point flower" is very confusing. de Bivort 18:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The FP criteria states "...it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements." The left side of the main Tulip in the image melds into a tulip of the same colour behind it. Therefore, the form/shape of the main tulip is not as clear IMO. Capital photographer (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMO the image still meets all the criteria. Muhammad(talk) 19:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essentially per the above, it meets all the criteria and I see no reason to delist this. Cat-five - talk 00:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets all criteria and shows the leaves, which the new candidade doesn't -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The nom is correct that the outline of the main bloom is partially obscured, but I don't think it's a fatal flaw. Find a better one then get rid of this one. Matt Deres (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria, IMO this one is better than the new nom, main tulip is sharper here, even though edge blends slightly into bg. --Janke | Talk 18:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all above - particularly since it shows the leaves --Fir0002 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good quality, and shows both flowers, buds and leaves. Sharper than the new nom. Narayanese (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - image does not fail to show what a tulip looks like --T-rex 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, is more enc and sharper than the new nom. Mfield (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. Perhaps a bit unnecessary given the other generous comments above, but this still strikes me as one of the best flower photos on Wikipedia, clearly meeting all criteria. And would have been nice to be notified of the nom here, as per the clearly stated delist criteria. --jjron (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]