Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodylus-krokodilskopf.jpg

File:Crocodylus-krokodilskopf.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 19:08:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodylus-krokodilskopf.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodylus-krokodilskopf.jpg

1913

2012

160

136

3703

5000

Dust spot

753

4309

839

370

3703

5000

Dust spots

1790

2704

1284

2235

3703

5000

Dust spots

•  Info created by H. Krisp - uploaded by H. Krisp - nominated by H. Krisp -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment 4 pictures in one scientific overview H. Krisp (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment There are several making errors / dust spots, but can be removed (see annotation) --Llez (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you! I removed the dust spots H. Krisp (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Request can you remove the CA please? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Hello Alchemist-hp, sorry, I´m a hobbyphotograph. Can you tell me what you mean with CA please? Thank you very much and many greetings
  • CA = Chromatic aberration. Alchemist, please remember that not everyone knows what this means! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
•  SupportA great looking picture--Breawycker (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support High EV, nice composition. Steven Walling 04:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Good.--Ankara (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose For a scientific overview, all images should be to the same scale and have the same white balance! W.S. 10:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per W.S. --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose WS has good point here. - Benh (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you very much for the critical comment! I know what you mean but a same scale is in a paper not really necessary! Normally scientific journals want to see under each picture a scale. If you want, I can make such a scale but to my mind those things disruptive the picture because my intention was only, to take a nice scientific photo that showed many details of a skull of a juv. crocodylus sp.. Thank you and many greetings H. Krisp (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think the biggest issue is the white balance consistency. - Benh (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• sorry, but:  Oppose per W.S + technical inadequacy: white balance + chromatic abberation. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Oh, now I understand WS and CA. Thank you very much H. Krisp (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Scale on the image is not necessary, but the scale of the subimages has to be the same:

Version 3

W.S. 09:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment I tried to make the picture a little bit better :o) H. Krisp (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Why did you use pixels and not something like centimeters? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Is that not obvious? How am I going to use cm when no indication of size is given on the original? W.S. 07:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, never mind then. I thought an alternative with a scale was being added. I see this is merely for demonstrative purposes, though IMO it was obvious to me that the images already weren't in the same scale. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment Hi W.S., sorry that I upload the new version with no comment (see above) but my withdraw is correct: I think the picture isn´t good enough for a featured picture. Now I try it again in the category quality images (I found the category this evening :o)). Thank you very much and many greetings H. Krisp (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /IdLoveOne (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)