Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Damselfly September 2007 Osaka Japan.jpg

Image:Damselfly September 2007 Osaka Japan.jpg, not featured

original nomination

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche --Laitche 13:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Laitche 13:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - Needs identification to be useful! I would bet on the Coenagriidae family, could be a Nehalennia speciosa or a Ischnura elegnas. Also, the picture is quite noisy, needs a general clean-up and maybe a donwsampling. Alvesgaspar 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. --Laitche 18:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Not bad, but not FP detail, not WOW for me. Sorry --Beyond silence 15:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Updated new version.(down sampling and noise reduction) --Laitche 17:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Best detail, beautiful light --Luc Viatour 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Overwhelming colors, very good macro! Thank you very much for this contribution. The sharpness is on the limit, same for the artefacts, but whatever. :) --Richard Bartz 22:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Definitely a QI but I agree with Beyond silence about the detail. Calibas 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very, very nice. -- Slaunger 23:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose ack Beyond silence Dori | Talk 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Sharpness is borderline , but I really like the composition. --Digon3 ^talk 02:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose noisy, not sharp enough. Lycaon 07:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Laitche 10:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC) I withdraw this one. Please vote to new version again. --Laitche 10:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

result: Withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

New version, featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche 15:34, 14 September 2007

I think the new version is much better, and need an other voting. You may withdraw the first. (Please who voted the new version cut the vote to it!)--Beyond silence 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness :) --Laitche 09:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Very nice composition, but the technical issues are not meeting current insect FP standards (focus, noise). Lycaon 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Info This one is exactly the same as above one. Not same as old version(Before 17:14, 14 September 2007). --Laitche 09:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC) --Laitche 04:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

changed top image to original nomination. Lycaon 09:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This one was exactly the same as above one before Mr. Lycaon changed top image to original nomination at 09:54, 15 September 2007 (I thought that need explanation.) :) --Laitche 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support --Laitche 15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very beautiful. Tons of wow factor. No problems with focus or noise. Fg2 06:36, 16 September 2007(UTC)
•  Oppose - Sorry but composition and beauty are not enough. Technically it is well below the current standars - Alvesgaspar 08:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice colors. --Richard Bartz 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Nice detail. --Beyond silence 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Still very, very nice. -- Slaunger 20:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Due to focus Dori | Talk 15:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support OK! --Chrumps 13:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - I'm puzzled how can this photo being promoted despite its obvious lack of technical quality. I know from self experience that this is not a easy subject to shoot but I believe it is possible to do better. The fact is this picture is far from reaching the actual high standars for insect photos, the same "bar" which have recently declined much better works - Alvesgaspar 09:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)