Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Micropterus dolomieu2.jpg

File:Micropterus dolomieu2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 16:27:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Micropterus dolomieu2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Micropterus dolomieu2.jpg

•  Info created by Knepp, Timothy - uploaded by Neil916 - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Citron (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Raghith 17:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Good colors and sharp, its a good illustration. Azeri (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Fine illustration but nothing extraordinary imo. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You find that Commons has a lot of paint that represent simultaneously three different sides of a fish, in their natural habitat?--Citron (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The illustrative value of the image (which is high) is not the problem. Magic (or the lack of it) is. I still believe we should struggle to promote only the very best Commons has to offer. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, this is just a demonstration of your belief. It's regrettable, I think. It's hard to make a "magic" painting of ... fishes, while keeping the encyclopedic value. --Citron (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, "magic" is for flickr explored. Commons should emphasize educational content. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Citron & Juliancolton: Yes, my vote is just a demonstration of my conviction, just like any other vote. It would indeed be regrettable if people were not allowed to express it freely, especially when it does not agree with the opinion of others. Or maybe I should have just used "Support" or "Oppose"? "Magic" is just another way of referring to the subjective component of our assessments, which makes a substancial part of people's votes here. What we should, or should not, emphasize when voting in FPC is a question of personal choice. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree on the substance, but not on form. I know very well that you find there is a reduced quality of FP, currently. But you have a clear idea of a "magic" photo that I would understand...--Citron (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Per Azeri. Steven Walling 01:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral An excellent image for the encyclopedia, but nothing I would consider remarkable. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 12:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Upgrade. I was young and naive back then. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 21:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nothing extraordinary? I suppose most Commoners can paint something like this? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I found the previous fish illustrations very good and useful and this is no exception. --Ximonic (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Generally lacking details but it does have some value.--Snaevar (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The argument of Alvesgaspar reflects what I think : is interesting work which has high encyclopedic value but does not exceptional. We do not know is that we reward. The painter's work, or work from that which has thepicture taken? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media