Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bouquetin jeune 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 10:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ymaup -- Ymaup (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ymaup (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice composition --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I move my vote to other variant --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better than the other one. Yann (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Try as I might, I just can't find anything special about this shot, both in quality and composition. Compare with this picture, which IMO is superior in every way. -- JovanCormac 14:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This picture is a lama!!! I find it quite weird to compare my picture with this one! -- Ymaup (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, it's a llama. But you have to admit that the setting is very simliar, and the quality and composition of the llama picture are better. -- JovanCormac 15:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Which doesn't mean that both can't be FP! If you always compare with other, you'd only have 100 FP on Commons, althoguh I have to agree that the other one is better... -- Ymaup (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I agree with Ymaup. It is incorrect compare. try to compare picture by Amedeo Modigliani and nominated before b/w nude. With best regards --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not good enough. —kallerna™ 14:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you give more details? -- Ymaup (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)<br[reply]
  - On full size it's bit blurry & noisy. —kallerna™ 15:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK with me, and I uploaded a sharpened and reduced noise version File:Bouquetin jeune 2 edit 1.jpg. If you believe it is over-sharpened, I could reduce noise only in my next edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI nominate this new version instead of the last one -- Ymaup (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, please do not forget to support it

Oppose Support for JPG, one is enough --ka ʁs tn 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't think this is particularly noisy, but a slightly tighter crop could improve it. --Dschwen (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall quality IMO not sufficient for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one too. Yann (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course... Ymaup (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same problems as on the original version. —kallerna™ 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ka ʁs tn 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kallerna. -- JovanCormac 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall quality IMO not sufficient for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation menu