Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oncometopia orbona Kaldari.jpg

File:Oncometopia orbona Kaldari.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2012 at 01:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Oncometopia orbona Kaldari.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oncometopia orbona Kaldari.jpg

•  Info created by Kaldari - uploaded by Kaldari - nominated by Miguel Bugallo -- Miguel Bugallo 01:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Miguel Bugallo 01:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 Comment I just now saw that the image has a size of 1200x1600 pixels (not 1224x1632 pixels), but excellent quality--Miguel Bugallo 01:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Tomer T (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Below 2 MPixel. I am surprised that six reviewers prior to this has supported the image given the too low resolution. --Slaunger (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I know that. Miguel mentioned it in the start of the vote. But I was willing to compromise on size (anyway it's nearly 2MPX) because of the quality and impressiveness. Tomer T (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Perhaps the question for this reviewers is not the resolution, it's the crop: The insect is big and to me can be QI and FP with a little bit of megapixels less. But I understand you and I don't know what to do--Miguel Bugallo 23:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry--Miguel Bugallo 23:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. It is not a catastrophe. Of, course as nominator, you always have the option to withdraw the nomination if you feel the nomination was a mistake...--Slaunger (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 Question Am I the only one having problems with just seeing the 1200x1600 full resolution image? When I click the full resolution link of the image in the file page, I get directed to a image with even lower resolution than the the file page preview? --Slaunger (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment In my case, I calculated the megapixels as given by Miguel: 1200x1600 equals 1.92 Mpx. I thought 4% less was still acceptable. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Usually, the interpretation of the resolution guideline is considered a rather hard wall, to quote

    Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more than the 2 million level.

    In my interpretation that implies that unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons' (and I do not think there are in this case, pretty ordinary macro circumstances) it is a no go. --Slaunger (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

    No problem then, I removed my support vote, rules are rules. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose size. --99of9 (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Sorry. Low resolution--Miguel Bugallo 17:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)