Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:White shark.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:White shark.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 11:56:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Pterantula - uploaded by Althepal - nominated by Julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Julielangford (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is far too small Lycaon (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)- Support When I nominated this photo for delisting, people wrote that the underwater setting acted as a strong mitigating reason. This shark picture is far better than the Canthigaster one. Ergo FPX contested and support. -- JovanCormac 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mitigation for quality (difficult shooting circumstances regarding colours and light diffraction), not size! Lycaon (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The one I mentioned has about the same resolution as the shark picture, though. -- JovanCormac 14:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mitigation for quality (difficult shooting circumstances regarding colours and light diffraction), not size! Lycaon (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Resolution. —kallerna™ 14:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support This picture is really really wow to me. Much better than the delist candidate fish below. Also the delist candidate tick is kind of small, and this one is a lot sharper. --Korall (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment I really don't think that the resolution should be an off putting factor with this image. It is under the size suggested, but it's not tiny, or by any means a useless size. It is large enough to be used, and used well, in some very valuable projects. Also, the lighting is natural, and quite dim [although excellent for an underwater shot]. I could take this into Photoshop right now and increase the file size no problem at all, without changing the size of it - just be upping the exposure a little. But why? just to make it bigger in size? No need, I think it's perfect, just as it is. Julielangford (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The resolution of this image is only a mere 50% of the 2 Mpx that the guidelines require! There is no mitigation for promoting a 'half-sized' image. The image is good (could be a VI for instance) but does NOT meet requirements for FP. This 2 Mpx limit was installed more than two years ago [1] when it was deemed that under 3 Mpx cameras were becoming an extinct species. Two years on and 8 Mpx being the entry-level res for point-n-shooters, you want to start promoting small images? Are you serious? Lycaon (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Normally, I would be one of the first to oppose an image that is way too small, but I think this one is smaller than suggested - not by any means, way to small. I really think in the case of this image, the line above - Happy judging, and remember, all rules can be broken - is appropriate. I could make this 2 mb in the blink of an eye, without changing the resolution at all, and probably get a good result. But, I wasn't the one in the water with Great White sharks, the orignal artist was, and they deserve all the credit. And incidentally, this image was taken three years ago, long before the fight for pixels began. Julielangford (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The resolution of this image is only a mere 50% of the 2 Mpx that the guidelines require! There is no mitigation for promoting a 'half-sized' image. The image is good (could be a VI for instance) but does NOT meet requirements for FP. This 2 Mpx limit was installed more than two years ago [1] when it was deemed that under 3 Mpx cameras were becoming an extinct species. Two years on and 8 Mpx being the entry-level res for point-n-shooters, you want to start promoting small images? Are you serious? Lycaon (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The size is too low IMO to be FP. --S23678 (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose – per others. --Ernie (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not like the light spots on shark body. --Karel (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow, IMO.--Claus (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support I liked it, but per Karel --kaʁstn 10:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support // tsca (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
