Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turtle golfina escobilla oaxaca mexico claudio giovenzana 2010.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Turtle golfina escobilla oaxaca mexico claudio giovenzana 2010.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2011 at 23:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Giove - uploaded by Giove - nominated by Giove -- Giove (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Support
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, - Due to a new version of this photo I change my vote to Support--Snaevar (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Due to a new version of this photo I change my vote to
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I like it, but alas, too small. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment It is large enough for a lot of applications, especially digital content. The quality of the image, despite its size, is good enough, aesthetically, photograpically and encyclopaedically. It is definitelly a much better photograph than a lot of the images that have passed as FP. It fits the screen nicely and even print applications can go up to half page with no problem. Most photographs never make it to that size anyway. I´d much rather have a good small photograph than a large mediocre one. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)- Comment What about the dark spot, on the top right of the image, and the fact that one of the limbs of the turtle are partially cut off at the bottom right. Just becouse this image is a sunset photo, and visually beutiful as such does not mean that it´s quality, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Because it's beautiful, interesting and because I have a doubtfulness that getting such an image is an easy thing to do (kindly correct me if I'm wrong). EDIT: Thanks, High Fin. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition is FP to me but way too downsampled. I have to oppose it on technical reasons. Would support a higher resolution version. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support well done --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support New 2.6 Mpx version worths FT to me --LucaG (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nice illustration of turtles on the beach. --Elekhh (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Still way too downsampled for a Canon EOS 7D. Just upping a slightly over the limits version for FP is gaming the system. W.S. 08:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think standards should be consistent, and not camera related. Also see no need to bite newbies.. --Elekhh (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support the image is good.. if the user will upload a higher resolution probably some users will complain about the noise level.. high resolution images and noise levels is something that should be discussed.. otherwise users would prefer to down-sample there images. Ggia (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I see only a beach with sand.--Claus (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- That demonstrates how well the turtles are hiding ;) --Elekhh (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nice aesthetic, and thanks for improving the resolution - more would be even better! --99of9 (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Strong supportThomas888b (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)- Support: Beautiful! TFCforever (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles
