Comment What are the units in the distance scale? What is the principal scale of the map? Where is North? Not all the cartographic symbols used in the representation are identified in the legend. The image seems too small to be useful as a real map. -- Alvesgaspar23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Please read article about SVG" - read it, and don't understand about 98% of it. One thing it does say, is that "The use of SVG on the web is in its infancy" . . . in other words, you can't expect most people to be able to resize it, because their computers are too old to have it on. If I try clicking on the pic to see it full size, I just get a warning about an unknown file type, that may harm my computer. I'm not willing to take this risk. - MPF21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We know the format is scalable. But how to make the image bigger in this context, to facilitate the evaluation? And how to scale it to adequate size in other Wikipedia projects? I tried to download and convert the image with CorelDraw and failed. -- Alvesgaspar15:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A static map like this one shouldn’t be scalable: if you reduce the scale, the lettering and other cartographic symbols might become illegible and the image crowded; if you enlarge it, you are suggesting a precision (and accuracy) that the map doesn’t have. Note that topographic maps of the same region, but with different scales, have different detail and symbology (different levels of “generalization”, as cartographers say). For this particular map I suggest the following improvements: (i) make it non-scalable; (ii) state the scale of the map; (iii) indicate the direction of North; (iv) draw and graduate one parallel and one meridian (or suggest them) so that we know where in Earth this place is; (v) improve the legend so that all symbols used in the map are explained (railroads, road tags, etc.); (vi) make the neatline (the exterior line that frames the map) more sober. Good work! -- Alvesgaspar08:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is something important I forgot to say: the map is beatiful and nicely done. But beauty is not enough, in this case, to being really useful and reach FP standards. -- Alvesgaspar13:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not all symbols are explained in the legend, no arrow that indicates north, no distance units used in scalebar. This map just does not satify some basic cartographic requisites. Tbc11:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indicates north there is on the down in Legend. What symbols aren't explained in the legend? Marcin n®☼ 12:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The railroad and the footpath nearby the water (if it is a footpath) for example. Now I took a second look a few other things struck me: first, the roads are digitized as polygons and not as line elements (there are indeed some arguments why in some situations thsi is preferred, but not for the purpose of this map). For example: the road Narutowicza, Mickiewicza, the railroad, ... gets wider and smaller. It would surprise me if the roads really do this, it looks more like sloppiness to me (just like the footpath that leaves the grass on the right). Also the polygons are not "snapped" to one another (look at the orange building/grass contact zone in the lower right), that will create small meaningless polygons that will be clearly visible at full zoom (definately in svg). Please do not interpret these comments the wrong way, they are meant to be constructive. The map is good, but really should not be a featured one. Tbc13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am sorry....the idea of the composition is nice. But the tree disturbs and unfortunatelly there is too much noise.--AngMoKio17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried bringing down the noise level, and it helps, but probably not enough to make a difference. If you have a raw file it might. Dori | Talk04:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution is the only thing keeping me from Support, I feel a higher resolution should be uploaded. If the height of cropping was increased, I would support this picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digon3 (talk • contribs) at 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because only 30kb (is this the lowest ever submitted for FPC???). Needs to be 10-20 times that resolution to be worth considering - MPF12:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ich würde nie einen Fuß oder Fühler ab-oder anschneiden. Aber von der Qualität her könnte es hinkommen :) Pass auf mit deinem Support, das Bild ist nicht besonders groß (853 × 1280). --Makro Freaktalk21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist ein Irrglaube, zu glauben dass abgeschnittene Teile des Hauptobjekts ein Fehler sind....das kann Teil der Komposition sein. So sehe ich das hier. Was die Größe angeht...das kann ich hier übersehen. --AngMoKio21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop does not help. The foreground is a bit distracting. This is not up to the standards of other insect FPs, sorry. -- Ram-Man13:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photograph - I love the detail in the legs. I don't think I believe the exposure data, though - 1/13 sec is NOT going to result in a sharp photo like this of a live animal (or is it?) -- ChemistHans19:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The exposure data is right. It was a cloudy day with no wind and I did some experiments with my new remote control for the camera. I took about 10 pictures with different exposure settings to see how they come out. This one was the best. JuliusR10:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]