Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blue-tailed damselfly (Ischnura elegans) female infuscans-obsoleta 2.jpg

File:Blue-tailed damselfly (Ischnura elegans) female infuscans-obsoleta 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2016 at 17:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Blue-tailed damselfly (Ischnura elegans) female infuscans-obsoleta 2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blue-tailed damselfly (Ischnura elegans) female infuscans-obsoleta 2.jpg

327

11

4414

3147

4752

3168

Proposal: Crop a bit off the left to use the diagonals better. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
•  Info created by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charles (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 18:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support some noise - which I don't mind at all --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment A clean and classic damselfly composition with good bokeh. See image note for a proposed alternative crop. Have you tried that? BG a bit (chroma-)noisy. Not a major issue, but quite easy to improve. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  weak oppose After looking through our other damselfly FPs, I do not think this nomination is quite on par with the FP bar within this topic area concerning detail level and crispness. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    •  Neutral Thanks for the new crop! I think it is better now, although I am not quite convinced I can support. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely. -- Ram-Man 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support but agree with Slaunger--Famberhorst (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support. Nice, and I like the bokeh. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry guys, are you sure? The quality is imo far away from the bug bar at FP. Looks good at thumb but at full res this one cant be FP! Please have a closer look and look for other featured damselfly pictures for comparison. --mathias K 17:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support very good. --Hubertl 18:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree we have a better FP damselflys than this, but (in terms of detail) we have others that are similar too, and also don't have the tail in focus. But it's very noisy and the chroma noise is very unappealing, so without excellence elsewhere I must oppose. An experienced FP contributor should have fixed that prior to nomination, and there's no response to Slaunger's comment since two days. I agree with Slaunger about the crop improvement too. -- Colin (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Noise reduced and cropped as suggested by @Slaunger: and @Colin: . Charles (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Mathias is right. --A.Savin 01:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per latest edits. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata