Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anas Platyrhynchos in Stockholm 090416 1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Anas Platyrhynchos in Stockholm 090416 1.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 11:14:01
Info created by Peipei - uploaded by Peipei - nominated by Plrk -- Plrk (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Plrk (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)- Support -- Peipei (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment -- If anyone wants to do a better job of removing the ice cream cone at the legs, drop me a note and I'll give you the source. -- Peipei (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, sub-optimal lighting, head out-of-focus (compare with File:Male mallard duck 2.jpg and File:Male mallard3.jpg). --Aqwis (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Neutral right now I can't even find the spot where the cone was - so it seems you removed it quite well :) The head could be a bit brighter otherwise nice shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)- Oppose Because of the dull lighting - the nice species-specific shimmering of the head-neck feathers isn't visible as a example. I'am afraid to say that we have much better FP's of mallards. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of poor lighting and a high standard for this particular species due to several existing FP --ianaré (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment FPX may be a bit harsh, especially since the image got already two supporting votes. Lycaon (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not that harsh, considering that the two supports are the uploader and the nominator ourselves... Plrk (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose That said, I do agree with Richard however. Lycaon (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, FPX should be used for obvious cases only. This is, technically, a high-quality image, but with unfortunate lighting. If it didn't have so many oppose votes already I'd have expected it to gain a few support votes eventually. --Aqwis (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- FPX doesn't devalues a picture. It accelerates (in all fairness) the closing procedure when there seems no chance of success - instead of - cashing in a flood of unpleasant oppose votes. FPX is good - a long dead is sad. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
