Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ringelnatter, Natrix natrix mit Teichmolch 3.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Ringelnatter, Natrix natrix mit Teichmolch 3.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 21:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Info Eine Ringelnatter (Natrix natrix) verspeist einen Teichmolch (Triturus vulgaris).
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Wow! --Umnik (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose interesting subject, but part of the picture is out of focus --Llorenzi (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Interesting. --
aghith 09:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose subject not in focus. ■ MMXX talk 09:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose too much light. The main subject is the salamander, so the lack of focus on the snake is a minor reason, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunate crop/DOF. W.S. 23:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Variante
[edit]Comment This is better. --
aghith 09:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Support I prefer this one. The part which was out of focus is not so much a problem anymore in my opinion. The subject catches my eye better in this crop. --Ximonic (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Support--Umnik (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Very interesting picture. Azeri (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose -- An interesting and possibly valuable picture, though no explanation is provided on what is going on. But not good enough, especially on the technical side (lighting, framing, focus), to reach FP level. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Absolutely agree with Alvesgaspar --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Avenue (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)