Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Aeshna cyanea female 1.jpg

Image:Aeshna cyanea female 1.jpg, featured

•  Info Blaugrüne Mosaikjungfer vor blaugrünem Hintergrund - 4 Tage nach dem Schlüpfen. Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image: MosaikJungferExuvie09.JPG
•  Info created by Böhringer - uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Böhringer --Böhringer 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support nice detail, great background colours --Simonizer 08:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Sehr schön, Grüße Makro Freak 08:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digon3 ^talk 15:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Super Hintergrund! --MichaD | Michael Apel 19:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Winiar^✉ 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--AngMoKio 19:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 19:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support --Digitaldreamer 05:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 20:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--AdrF 22:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Basik07 09:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Cacophony 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose This will be a first for me: the crop is too tight, so I have to oppose for that reason only. However, in trying to "raise the bar" for insect photos, this one just looks like the same old type of picture. Simplistic with a single object and a blurred background. There is also at least one other FP of this species and other similar pictures of different species but similar looking insects. I don't see why I should support this one, as it doesn't stand out above the other FPs. -- Ram-Man 11:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Help! Ram-Man on a voting rampage! For me, this one has this raised quality.--Makro Freak ^talk 12:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the confusion and adjusted my comment for clarity. If this one raises quality then other ones should be delisted. I much prefer the detail on this similar featured picture. Both have tight framing, but the featured picture has more uniform DoF and better sharpness and detail. This image should also replace this one. My vote obviously will not make a difference, so whether support, neutral, or oppose, it won't matter. If the vote was close I would have abstained because you are right: it is better than others even with tight framing. I'm just trying to make a point: we already have a similar photo that has (debateable) better DoF, so how does this one raise the bar? It's not clearly better. -- Ram-Man 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Dont let you traumatize with "raise the bar" ;), ohmygod! This is more a "funny" motivation claim than a measurement parameter . Your given examples are all from different species, but if there are 2 similar pictures of the same species i agree to make a delisting proc.. --Makro Freak ^talk 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The second example is the same species. I have started a delisting since this will obviously pass. As for raising the bar, it's about insects in general, not about a specific species. This image improves on another FP of the same species, but it does not raise the bar for other insect photos that have recently passed, as in the first example. -- Ram-Man 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose on grounds of file name! Full support when file name is (will be) changed. Lycaon 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

verstehe Lycaon nicht! Hier wurde kein Dateinamen geändert !!! --Böhringer 10:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dateinamen können z.B. geändert werden mit dem {{badname}} Template. You should however do this after nomination has finished and then transfer FP status to the new one (reuploaded with proper name). Also check and correct usage for the file. I have no qualms with the image itself: for me it deserves FP status. Lycaon 11:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

warum dann immer noch ein Oppose ?????

As a matter of principal. Don't worry, it won't make a difference to the promotion of your image. Lycaon 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

it´s ok thank´s--Böhringer 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Es geht um den momentanen Dateinamen. Es sollte wohl der korrekte lateinische Namen der Spezies angegeben sein (und möglichst wenige kryptische Zahlen und Buchstaben). --AngMoKio 11:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

wusste ich nicht, bin noch neu hier - danke für den Hinweis --Böhringer 14:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kein Problem :) --AngMoKio 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 05:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)