Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Green planthopper

Green planthopper

Photograph of a Green planthopper, Siphanta acuta Flatid planthopper.

Green planthopper edit

Green planthopper, higher resolution.

Reason: This image is well composed, captures what a planthopper is, and is pleasing to the eye.
Articles this image appears in: Planthopper, Green planthopper
Creator: Althepal
Nominator: Althepal

Support — Althepal 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Very good picture. Great background. Great size 16:33, 22 January 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.137.213 (talk)

Please log in, if you want your vote to mean anything. --Dschwen(A)

Weak oppose. Uhm... ...no. The size is not great. It's not even ok, as the subject is occupying only a small part of the picture. --Dschwen(A) 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small in the frame, as Dschwen says. However, if the bug is clipped out then the quality will be even lower, and the 1000 pixel rule not obeyed (but what a great bug!) - Adrian Pingstone 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC) - Adrian Pingstone 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant Oppose. Great shot but it's not big enough, the focus is a touch off and there is what seems to be minor artifacts on the log (or is that just the texture?) -Fcb981 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was trying to follow the rule of thirds and show the planthopper in context. It is greater than 1000 pixels on the long side. It was a textured branch, but I'm not sure what you are referring to. Althepal 00:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per dschwen, but civil. --⁪froth^T 01:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, are you implying my comment was uncivil? I was merely referring to the anonymous comment directly above.--Dschwen(A) 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, but if this exists in larger resolution it might be croppable to focus on the planthopper. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the edit? Althepal 06:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This looks like you just upsampled and cropped the previous version. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. But no, I took it from the higher quality original. Althepal 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably just replace the original image with the larger resolution version then. But it looks like it's got quality problems. ~ trialsanderrors 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? Althepal 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still oppose, the main object in the image, especially in animal photography, should be pretty much flawless to be considered FP. This one here has artifacts that are visible at 100% and become very apparent at 200%. Also, the tree branch is "flat" and the background, while dramatic, lacks the detail of other featured pictures. It's a good picture but not among the best as the criteria require. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per Fcb981 —Dgies^t c 05:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]