Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dragonfly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dragonfly

Yellow Striped Hunter
Yellow Striped Hunter

A nice image IMO of a dragonfly.
Alternative versions: Image:Yellow-striped hunter dragonfly06.jpg (he's smiling!}, Image:Yellow-striped hunter dragonfly08.jpg, Image:Yellow-striped hunter dragonfly10.jpg

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 11:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I would support this but the bottom of the dragonfly seems to be a bit blurred. If you can correct this then I'll support. For now, only a neutral vote from me. --Thorpe | talk 14:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Blurry parts lessen encyclopedicity. --Janke | Talk 14:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose poor focus. chowells 15:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same reasons as above. Mikeo 16:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral taken together the images are an excellent study of this particular dragonfly, but this particular shot isn't amazing. I'd consider lending my support to image #10. —Pengo 16:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support any. Excellent series of shots. Image6 is almost completely in focus across the whole body as well as showing a majority of the underside of the subject. Image10 is very crisp and the DoF is perfectly centered on the head and thorax. Don't forget that the image needen't capture the entire animal in perfect focus if the intent it to illustrate a specific aspect of the animal. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Weak Oppose per Janke. J.Steinbock (Talk)
  • Support for 08 and 10. I prefer the composition and extra DOF on the wings. I don't think, for an image like this, that the entire fly should be in focus, but you can barely see the wings at all in the main FPC. As a question on the side, what aperture did you use? Could you not have stopped down more? And why do you strip the EXIF data out of the image? It removes valuable information. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I like colors and background, but I'd also like to point out, that there are already two featured dragonfly pics this will have to be compared to. . Especially compared to the latter this one does not particularly stand out in the article. --Dschwen 06:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose not really better than the other two.--K.C. Tang 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor focus. Background objects should be either visible or foucused out to be unnoticeable.

asnatu 20:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose, I agree with Dschwen. There are better dragonfly pictures. -- BWF89 04:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)