Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pisaura mirabilis Listspinne.jpg

Image:Pisaura mirabilis Listspinne.jpg

Original (left) - featured

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral well done norro 15:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Supporti actually like the third person aproach. -LadyofHats 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Jon Harald Søby 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support off-center is the better one. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with Bastique; the spider off-centre is more interesting --Eirissa 22:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Jnpet 17:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose background -- Lycaon 09:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose background -- Pseudomoi (to chat on WP) 16:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I am curious what exactly is wrong with the background? The spider is on a leaf of a tulip and behind is green grass...a quite natural environment.--AngMoKio 17:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support in that case..., I need new specs ;-) (the background is actually not grass but Lesser celandine, (Ranunculus ficaria), who said I needed specs???) -- Lycaon 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 7 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 18:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cropped version (right) - not featured

•  Comment I uploaded a cropped version you can see on the right. I cropped it really radically, even one leg of the spider is cropped. But the resolution is still high enough and I did that to emphasise the weird kinda third-person shooter perspective which makes it a featured picture in my opinion (the cropped version). norro 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the new version and comment. So far i didnt see that photo this way. The main thing i like abt the composition of the original version is the line from the lower left corner to the upper right corner and the placement of the spider. It seems as if the spider is approaching sth silently behind the leaf. I'd be happy abt further comments from others...--AngMoKio 19:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

•  Support norro 15:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment "At least 2 million pixels (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now. Images of lower resolution are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons". --MichaelMaggs
•  Oppose background -- Lycaon 09:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

 1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)