Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/DELIST Percival Lowell observing Venus

Delist: Percival Lowell observing Venus[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2013 at 14:25:35 (UTC)

Reason: Though a recent addition to the gallery, the original nomination was contentious because of size issues. This discussion resulted in the evaluation of the image's EV being neglected as well. The most obvious issue with the file is that it is of a low resolution. The previous nomination established that original plates of the image do exist. It stands to reason that a better copy is very much possible, though not available. There is thus no reason for waiving the size requirement we imposed--the image is not of a historical nature that we cannot expect a better quality image. It falls into the unfortunate category of "best free subpar reproduction". That's not our best work, and that's not what we've featured in the past. Had for some reason the original copies been destroyed and this been the highest possible reproduction, it would have been reasonable to let the standards slide. However, this is merely a case of lack of access.

Additionally, the image has remarkably low EV, particularly in its current use. Percival Lowell is better illustrated by other, high resolution images (I see no reason why, for example, a restored version of his lead portrait would not be a good candidate). The Lowell Observatory is poorly illustrated in the image and it has low EV there as a result--that's probably why it's more or less in a gallery. In Great refractor no mention is made of the man or the building and the image s more or less tacked on. Planets beyond Neptune certainly pertains to Lowell and his work, but this isn't the telescope that was used in that inquest and if we're trying to illustrate the man there's clearly better images available.

Also, this may be somewhat bold, but the consensus on the talk page seems to be that the Delist section is on it's way out. While there's some details left to be sorted, the recent Barack Obama picture went through the main section without too much stir. Therefore I've listed this along with the rest of the nominations, marking it clearly as a delisting nomination. Now I'll sit back and bite my nails.
Articles this image appears in: Percival Lowell, Lowell Observatory, Great refractor, Planets beyond Neptune
Previous nomination/s: 2006 nomination (not promoted)
2013 nomination (promoted)
Nominator: Cowtowner (talk)

Delist — Cowtowner (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Original nominator now notified. Cowtowner (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has a stunning composition that illustrates an important article. I'm not convinced by the size arguments (if we are going to allow exemptions...let's allow them. Plus what matters is use in our 'pedia and as displayed, size is not a problem). Finally, I think running delists on recent images for size or other technical criteria is contentious. Now if you had found out it was non-free or was not Lowell or dropped out of article or if it had been in our bank for a long time, that is a different matter. But just rerunning it? The size is not new information and was considered by the promoters at the time. And the stuff about plates being available is too abstract (if they exist but are unavailable, how is that different than if destroyed?) If you get them fine, upload a new version...but until we have them, we don't have them.TCO (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exemptions are fine, but there has to be justifications for them beyond "I like this picture". To quote the criteria, "Exceptions ... may be made where ... no higher resolution could realistically be acquired.". That's hardly the case here. It's not unrealistic to obtain a scan of a plate that exists. It is where no other copy does. Which is how the two cases are radically different. Accepting that images simply aren't available because we don't possess them while others do but aren't making them available isn't a convincing argument. It opens up the door for featuring more or less any image that we come across. Just making exemptions on the basis that the image is strikingly composed defeats the purpose of even having criteria. Not to mention, it takes this project back a good 6 years or so to days of radically lower standards. As for the image "illustrating" the articles, I'd suggest reviewing the case I made against the image's EV (which I think is just as compelling a reason as the technical deficiencies for this being delisted). It seems to adorn more than anything.

Recency is an irrelevant point-if they were undeservingly promoted they were undeservingly promoted. There's no grace period of featured time before we can or should talk about delisting. There's no point to letting them languish in the gallery out of politeness, or a desire to avoid controversy. While the size issues (or even the EV which got overlooked in the nomination) may not be new, that doesn't make them relevant. Additionally, there is new information, namely the discovery that there are existing plates which was a very late development in the previous nomination. Cowtowner (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm for keep as well, per TCO. But also, don't forget the very first sentence on this page: "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article". Of course, this should be taken as advice along with the image meeting the criteria, but I, too, think exemptions should be made in the case of extraordinary photos, and this certainly appears to be so. If I saw this on the Main Page, I would want to know more about it. As for the plates being inaccessible, while this isn't necessarily akin to saying they're "destroyed" (quoting TCO), I do think it plays an important role in judging a, and particularly this, photograph. We must work with what we have, and we must get the best of what we have if possible, but "possibility" shouldn't be precluded by impossibility. Obviously it would be most remarkable if Wikipedia had free and welcome access to every locked museum vault in the world, but sometimes the best we can come up with is actually good enough. If anything, this photograph has an immense potential for delist & replace, someday in the far future. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by reiterating that being a pretty, eye-catching picture is firstly not one of the formal criteria, but a guideline and that even so being eye-catching is not itself cause for waiving the critieria or even loosening them. While being breathtaking may add to an image's case for promotion, it can't make it up entirely. I'll take this from the criteria to illustrate "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing". To quote a different the actual criteria again on exemptions (see above for another example; it states multiple times why we might waive these requirements...and mentions impact all of no times) "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed". Yes, this image is historical, but was taken in a medium that allows for a much higher reproduction. It is hardly impossible to imagine acquiring a higher quality picture. There is one available for purchase scanned at 300DPI which is by any standard low resolution yet still higher than what we have featured. It's also hardly difficult to imagine having it scanned properly at a higher resolution by the museum it's held in. This is hardly an impossible situation like destroyed plates would be. The simple fact of the matter is that everything has to be featured. Yes, Wikipedia has to work with what is available. That's why the image is in the article. But accepting what is merely available as our "best work" defeats the purpose of a featured pictures project. This is not out best by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, we could delist and replace it in the future, but the point here is that it shouldn't have been featured in the first place. We can hope for free access to all vaults in the future, but we don't need to feature substand images like this in the meantime. We have other resources which are far superior and are actually our best work. This is somebody else's mediocre output. Cowtowner (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Everyone who was involved in the original nomination was well aware of the issues raised above. Nothing has changed. Also, I personally asked the owners of the original glass plate negatives if they would donate a hi-res scan for us, but they declined. That, I think, satisfies the caveat that "no higher resolution could realistically be acquired", unless one takes the word 'realistically' to mean 'forcibly'. This is a beautiful image, even if I do say so myself, hardly 'subpar' or 'mediocre'. :-| nagualdesign (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they won't give it away, but that doesn't make a high resolution copy unrealistic to acquire or impossible (to use the criteria's wording) to acquire a technically superior image. If a higher resolution copy isn't freely available but could be made or exists, then we shouldn't feature this sort of low quality version. This sort of standard results in a very slippery slope. Cowtowner (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This is an impressive, eyecatching image even if smaller than desirable. As explained above, this is the highest resolution that can realistically be acquired. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]