Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Blutzikade Cercopis vulnerata.jpg

Image:Blutzikade Cercopis vulnerata.jpg - featured

•  Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 06:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Info A cicada which is called Froghopper (Cercopis vulnerata) in english and Bloodcicada in german. She is shooting/dropping waterdrops out of her back in the early morning. Why she did it ? I can only assume that she regulates her clamminess .
•  Support Drip drop -- Richard Bartz 06:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 08:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The guy looks like Darth Vader at fullsize :) --norro 09:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• <Computerized high pitched 4bit inhale> Norro ... i'am your father ... -long break- <Computerized high pitched 4bit exhale>--Richard Bartz 09:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Sensor reinigen (links aussen Mitte & links aussen Unten) --Böhringer 11:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  erledigt --Richard Bartz 11:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Support -- Lycaon 12:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 14:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer 16:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis 16:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Pauk 03:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose You might say that I have something against this author, but that would be totally untrue. I appreciate the perfectly uniform backgrounds, but this one is compositionally weak. If this was about a bug and flashy water drops, great, but if this is about the drops out her backside (where the focus is), then the composition is seriously lacking. The eye is naturally drawn outside the image and the focus choice splits the image. -- Ram-Man 01:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there a rule about half and half composition that you could point to? Without a photographic rule to follow, this review is kind of useless.... -- 67.180.38.172 04:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A rule? This is a featured picture nomination. Rules are often very arbitrary, but composition is clearly important. Pictures are commonly rejected for numerous compositional reasons and my review is no exception. Any image that draws the eye away from important elements is usually considered compositionally weak and is a relatively common objection. I could find numerous examples. -- Ram-Man 11:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Do I understand you right, that if Richard changes the text in the nomination and crosses out the thing about the shooting water you give support? --AngMoKio 14:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Haha, no that isn't the point. The focus is both on the left and on the right but it is split by two strong visual elements on either side. The bubbles on the right are the most distracting of the two because they are the least important, but the split is inherent in the picture, not in any comments. Compare it to this one for what I prefer. -- Ram-Man 15:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio 14:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice image. --Kanonkas_(talk) 08:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

 12 support, 1 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 20:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)