Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great white shark on his back.jpg

File:Great white shark on his back.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 04:37:44

•  Info The image is a digital copy of my old print.
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Could you add date? —kallerna™ 13:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your question, kallerna. The image was taken in September of 2002. I forgot when I took it, but I looked at the release form that I signed promising to keep all my body parts inside the cage and not to sue diving operator, if I am bitten by a shark. :)

•  Question I have a question for everybody. If I nominated such quality image few months ago, it would have been fpx and opposed at least dozen times. What happen? No fpx, no opposes only one question, it is getting boring around here. :)

•  Info we're afraid of your voodoo powers --ianaré (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've no one. Please do not be afraid. Let's have some fun!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose poor quality. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is of poor quality, below size requirements and oversaturated. Lycaon (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Opposefor sure not the easiest shot. But this is really poor quality. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Alt 1, not featured

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose poor quality. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment If this were a much older image taken with a more primitive camera, I could see it potentially becoming featured based upon historical merits... Kind of a weird feature of our system that it's images like this that fall through the cracks. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's is this thing :" A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject." Of course hardly anybody follows this guideline. Whatever...I've done what I could to increase the EV of FP images. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who invented that statement, but a bad picture stays a bad picture, whether it is difficult or not. Lycaon (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do not know this either, but IMO whoever added this to the guidelines was right. May I please ask you why don't you delete this guideline once and for all? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn´t matther who added that, whoever did it added it just as someone else added that a subject has to have an ID in order to be featurable, regarless of the fact that we may lose a great picture of great value to a technicality that is photographically and encyclopedically irrelevant. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

@Lycaon, you forgot to FPX this alt. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose - not good enough quality.--Avala (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)