Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dragonfly portrait 01 (MK).JPG

File:Dragonfly portrait 01 (MK).JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2010 at 14:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by -- Leviathan (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Leviathan (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I removed the dustspot (clear cache)! Thanks to Darius Bauzys for showing me the spot! --Leviathan (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have 37 FPs already of Odonata (the order of dragonflies and damselflies). A quality of the nominated photo compared to most others is that it shows interesting details of the head. However, among the order, I do not think that it is quite on par with File:Aeshna cyanea - head close-up (aka).jpg concerning composition, colours, light (it is a bit harsh) and detail level (albeit the existing FP actually has quite bad resolution in terms of number of pixels). Going to the more general anthropods, I think we have several examples showing heads of superior in, e.g., File:Tenodera sinensis 3 Luc Viatour.jpg and especially the outstanding File:Caliphrodae head.jpg. (The latter is a super-FP for me, so noms do not have to be on par with that one for me to pass over the bar). So, in summary, I think it is a very nice photo, close to passing for me, but not quite on par with what is seen at FP - especially concerning composition. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think its unfair to directly compare a Sympetrum head with the head of an Aeshna Cyanea. Aeshna Cyanea is about twice the size so the head area is four times bigger. It is harder to take an equally good image of a much smaller object. I think I would have prefered a less centered composition, but IMO the Aeshna cyanea portrait is cropped too tight, so I like this image better. OK, so we have 37 odonata FP:s? There are more than 5000 odonata species so I don´t think we have too many of them.--Korall (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken concerning comparing the heads. I was not aware of the large difference in size, which has a big impact on the difficulty. Still I find it has a weak composition and somewhat harsh light. <rant>OK, so there are 5000 odonata species. There are 950,000 species of insects and we have <6 mio images on Commons. Are you suggesting it would be relevant to have an FP of each of them if a good photo was available? Currently, about one out of 2,300 images uploaded to Commons are featured. That is becasue the FPs should be the best of the best we have. Considering this I think 37 odonta FPs is more than enough. That does not mean there is not room for more, if they are exceptional. We have the alternative valued images program for acknowledging photos of visually distinct species and there can, in principle, be as many as 5,000 odonta VIs if the species are visually disinct. What we need is more diversity in our FP gallery, such that users coming to see our gallery are not dissapointed that what they find intersects very little with what interests and concerns the average user. Thus, our nominators should be encouraged to find new topics, and be discouraged by repeating what is already here by setting a high bar.</rant>. --Slaunger (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didnt mean we should have 5000 fps of dragonflies, I just suggested that the diversity is big enough to let some more in. I think head closeups are interesting and a little different from the rest. I nominated this file with less centered composition and not as harsh light for FP but it didnt go through. Im ready to support a head closeup because I enjoy studying the compound eyes.--Korall (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger. —kallerna™ 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am happy with the composition and light. Impressive head to me. --99of9 (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]