Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mariposa en Flor.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Mariposa en Flor.JPG, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2010 at 14:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Yfrojas (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC) - uploaded by Yfrojas (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC) - nominated by Yfrojas (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Yfrojas (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, blurry, high levels of noise. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)- Support Just because the FPX is not necessary. Yann (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- Uvegna (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose maybe FPX looks a bit to harsh, but do you (Yann) think it is nicer for the creator to read a lot of opposes? I think FPX was the right choise cause it is way below the actual macro bar and didn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be promoted imo. --mathias K 11:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- The worst is the lack of review. I prefer some negative reviews if the pitcure deserves it than no review at all. I do not add my opinion if I think that others have already expressed my view about a picture. And we need to give time so that people can actually review a picture. This one may not be featured but it is so bad that FPX is needed. I find the composition and the harmony of colors pleasant here. Yann (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think FPXing this one isn't a lack of review! The picture has NO chance to get featured. Why discuss endless about it? FPX and fine! IMO! To show a picture and ask for some critiques we have Commons:Photography critiques. When a potentially good picture gets a too fast FPX it is a completly other situation, but not here imo. bg mathias K 16:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- The worst is the lack of review. I prefer some negative reviews if the pitcure deserves it than no review at all. I do not add my opinion if I think that others have already expressed my view about a picture. And we need to give time so that people can actually review a picture. This one may not be featured but it is so bad that FPX is needed. I find the composition and the harmony of colors pleasant here. Yann (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - no species identification, no location, and even tagged 'media uncategorised'. - MPF (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose As MPF. --Karel (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality photographs. Too many areas out of fucus. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
