Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Orthetrum trinacria.jpg
- Reason
- Good quality, DOF and EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Orthetrum trinacria
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim, edited by Jjron
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 04:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support, looks good to me. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Tight crop and not outstanding among dragonfly pictures. --Dschwen 01:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- DOF is outstanding --Muhammad(talk) 12:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not much DOF needed from this angle. --Dschwen 13:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Outstanding angle then :) I think this is one of the most properly focused dragonfly picture we have. --Muhammad(talk) 14:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Downscaled and sharpend != most properly focused --Dschwen 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC) P.S.: have I still not been nasty enough to provoke some sympathy-supports?
- Care to show any examples of the "outstanding dragonfly pictures" you are referring to? --Muhammad(talk) 16:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please read carefully what I wrote: not outstanding among dragonfly pictures. That does not directly imply that there are "outstanding dragonfly pictures", just that yours is not standing out amongst the ones we do have. But well, here you go: excellent focus, much higher resolution, good focus, certainly nor worse than your picture, similarly good quality (screw the wing tips, no detail is lost there), good focus and detail, much nicer composition, superior composition, more challenging depth and yet sufficiently focussed, and with this i rest my case. Some of the stuff that gets happy-clappy support here lately is very disappointing. Looking at the FP collection it seems that a downsampling-mafia is running the show. :-( --Dschwen 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from the fact that many of the images you linked to are neither actual dragonflies nor FPs on the English wikipedia, how many pictures of this specie can you find? Criteria at commons are different and the resolution requirement here is 1000px which this meets quite easily. I hope you have not forgotten the criteria on your time away from FPC. --Muhammad(talk) 17:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- How on earth does it matter that those pics are FP on commons rather than here?! The only thing that tells me is that en.fpc is running on selfnominations from a pretty small crowd. And we were discussing technical merits. You are now saying that the technical criteria here are lower than on commons? And that makes my example invalid why exactly?! And now a mediocre picture of one in a zillion dragonfly species is an automatic FP, because it is the only one? --Dschwen 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Commons criteria are different and that is why I linked the criteria page so you could read and remind yourself before airing your comments. Dragonflies and damselflies have different behaviours, don't tell me you don't know the difference. Why don't you just oppose and let the nomination continue so we can know what others think as well? --Muhammad(talk) 17:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Before airing my comments? I find it rather impolite of you to try and silence my criticism. Nobody is keeping other people from voting and nobody is putting this nomination on halt. Your comment does not make much sense. As per the criteria: I simply do not think that the image is among wikipedias best work. Simple as that. You can try and Wiki-lawyer your way out of it by defining a sufficiently narrow subject scope. Be my guest. I'm done with this. --Dschwen 19:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I just feel you are judging images here based on commons criteria (including the monkey one above). And my comment was impolite? I really liked your tone. --Muhammad(talk) 00:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Before airing my comments? I find it rather impolite of you to try and silence my criticism. Nobody is keeping other people from voting and nobody is putting this nomination on halt. Your comment does not make much sense. As per the criteria: I simply do not think that the image is among wikipedias best work. Simple as that. You can try and Wiki-lawyer your way out of it by defining a sufficiently narrow subject scope. Be my guest. I'm done with this. --Dschwen 19:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Commons criteria are different and that is why I linked the criteria page so you could read and remind yourself before airing your comments. Dragonflies and damselflies have different behaviours, don't tell me you don't know the difference. Why don't you just oppose and let the nomination continue so we can know what others think as well? --Muhammad(talk) 17:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- How on earth does it matter that those pics are FP on commons rather than here?! The only thing that tells me is that en.fpc is running on selfnominations from a pretty small crowd. And we were discussing technical merits. You are now saying that the technical criteria here are lower than on commons? And that makes my example invalid why exactly?! And now a mediocre picture of one in a zillion dragonfly species is an automatic FP, because it is the only one? --Dschwen 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from the fact that many of the images you linked to are neither actual dragonflies nor FPs on the English wikipedia, how many pictures of this specie can you find? Criteria at commons are different and the resolution requirement here is 1000px which this meets quite easily. I hope you have not forgotten the criteria on your time away from FPC. --Muhammad(talk) 17:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please read carefully what I wrote: not outstanding among dragonfly pictures. That does not directly imply that there are "outstanding dragonfly pictures", just that yours is not standing out amongst the ones we do have. But well, here you go: excellent focus, much higher resolution, good focus, certainly nor worse than your picture, similarly good quality (screw the wing tips, no detail is lost there), good focus and detail, much nicer composition, superior composition, more challenging depth and yet sufficiently focussed, and with this i rest my case. Some of the stuff that gets happy-clappy support here lately is very disappointing. Looking at the FP collection it seems that a downsampling-mafia is running the show. :-( --Dschwen 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Care to show any examples of the "outstanding dragonfly pictures" you are referring to? --Muhammad(talk) 16:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Downscaled and sharpend != most properly focused --Dschwen 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC) P.S.: have I still not been nasty enough to provoke some sympathy-supports?
- Outstanding angle then :) I think this is one of the most properly focused dragonfly picture we have. --Muhammad(talk) 14:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not much DOF needed from this angle. --Dschwen 13:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- DOF is outstanding --Muhammad(talk) 12:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The difficulty seemed to be contrast against a busy background. Tried an edit to improve the contrast. This is curves only, no alteration to saturation (although it seems more saturated). Muhammad, is the result sufficiently accurate? Durova412 19:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is accurate but this picture is very old so I am not sure. --Muhammad(talk) 00:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edit --Muhammad(talk) 17:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - I much agree with Dschwen. That one doesn't stand so much (if at all) out of other similar pics. Composition is centered and straightforward. Background is distracting (but maybe one could argue it tells a lot about the environment). I'm surprised DOF is raised as reason to promote this, as the angle makes most part of the bug falling into focal plane. - Blieusong (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
