Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wasserfrosch.jpg

Image:Wasserfrosch.jpg featured

Nominate

— startaq 01:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — startaq 01:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like this picture, but unfortunately the forepart of the frog's head is out of focus. Calderwood 07:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Calderwood --SehLax 22:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Square 01:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ditto Calderwood. villy ♦✎ 07:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I'm almost neutral. -- Solipsist 08:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRomary 12:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Joonasl 07:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--[[User:Sarazyn|Sarazyn [[User talk:Sarazyn|<sup>'''Got milk?'''</sup>]]]] 07:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lerdsuwa 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 17:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC) would have liked it more if it was taken precisely in front of the frog, that little asymmetry bothers me[reply]
Support Limited depth-of-field noted, but that's unavoidable and I don't find it very distracting here. --MarkSweep 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood is right. I like the picture nonetheless. Kessa Ligerro 18:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with MarkSweep, its not perfect but its really good. And I like it a lot. Francisco M. Marzoa 20:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The limited depth-of-focus is inherent to this sort of picture. It's sharp where it matters. Great photograph (and a lovely animal, of course). MartinD 09:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral -->   Roger McLassus 17:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]