Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oncorhynchus nerka.jpg

File:Oncorhynchus nerka.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 13:21:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Oncorhynchus nerka.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oncorhynchus nerka.jpg

248

828

218

87

2250

1006

Perhaps this should be removed.

1811

845

201

101

2250

1006

This too.

•  Info created by Timothy Knepp - uploaded by Neutrality - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Citron (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I'm willing to support this excellent drawing, but: The geographic origin of the animal should be added to the file description (this is a very important info). --Cayambe (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Slfi (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Mile (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Fantastic illustration. =) Steven Walling 21:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think the text in the image should be removed. See annotations. Jovian Eye _talk 00:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. First, if you check out the usage example in English Wikipedia, you'll see that the text isn't really visible, so it's not having a detrimental effect on reuse on the projects. Second, this a drawing. Just like a painting, it is normal and acceptable for educational reuse for there to be a signature and such on the image. Steven Walling 00:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment The name of the fish doesnt really need to be in the image. I think the signature can be retained. But when you look more closely at the signature you'll see a copyright symbol. I strongly feel this should be removed. --Jovian Eye _talk 03:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
      • In Paddlefish Polyodon spathula.jpg, the signature is still here. The name of the fish, it's true that it's not useful. You can remove it, if you think this retail antagonizes its selection.--Citron (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, I disagree with Jovianeye. This is original drawing, so the same rule applies here as on paintings. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Jupiter's eye. Niabot and other artists don't sign there work neither. W.S. 11:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Artwork with a signature in it? Unacceptable! DELIST IT ALL! -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Now the crop is weird.--Citron (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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