Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Swan with nine cygnets 3.jpg

Image:Swan with nine cygnets 3.jpg, featured

•  Info created, uploaded S Sepp nominated by Benh 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment to meet our "swans" quota for tonight :) Benh 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support cuuuuuuuuuuuuute, which is a huge mitigating reasons for the flaws -- Benh 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Technical quality is average, but scenery is perfect. --norro 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support My daughter wants a big print of this one. --LucaG 23:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral Support Noise in darks and reflections, mother's head is not sharp, some overexposure, but these are blown away neutralized by the captured moment and overall composition, making my reconsidered vote neutral. - Relic38 01:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC) - Relic38 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Disturbingly cute. The "swan bar" has risen a couple notches today. Calibas 01:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 07:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I suppose "cute" is worth more than exposure, white balance, noise and sharpness? Sure it may look good in a thumbnail, but look at it in full res and this image fails on all these grounds and personally I find it disturbing to see it garner so much support. --Fir0002 www 07:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes to me it's a strong mitigating reason. I don't think white balance is a problem here. The colours are nice and the mood is good. I agree for the exposure. For the other reasons, and given the size, I don't believe it will do so bad if printed at the same size as a 1600x1200 pic. Benh 07:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Cute, yes, but with that everything is said. I can't support a low quality image like this one. Lycaon 08:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Question Could you point out what makes it low quality? --JaGa 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Look. and learn. Lycaon 17:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Tsk. Now you're just being catty. Calling a pic a "low quality image" without explaining why you think it's low quality is not very considerate to the author. And I thought that was something you believed in. --JaGa 06:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Per Lycaon - Alvesgaspar 09:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - If only her feathers could be cleaned... ChrisDHDR 11:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Walké 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Mama swan looks a bit overexposed. /Daniel78 20:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support. Cute. Look. and learn. --Kjetil r 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Considering the "ideal" setting in which these subjects are normally photographed. The environment distracts/detracts from the image, it does not add value to the image. That is not to say that "historical" or "ideal" settings should always be used, if unorthodox settings are skillfully exploited they can creat great images, in this case, in my opinion, does no. --Tomascastelazo 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose true it is cute. But the shot is really not perfect. I miss a composition...might even be that the uncropped version is better. --AngMoKio 19:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support This shot definitely has some wow. Freedom to share 21:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral due to overexposure and too tight a frame. Dori - Talk 22:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind. Dori - Talk 04:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support, i don't care about its technical faults; this is a great picture. --Aqwis 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Winiar^✉ 10:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose low quality image. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Lerdsuwa 11:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sanchezn 21:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Wisnia6522 15:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Cecil 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)