Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bee on Yellow Flower.jpg

File:Bee on Yellow Flower.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2010 at 19:32:41 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/File:Bee on Yellow Flower.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bee on Yellow Flower.jpg

1581

275

729

746

3817

1683

Bombus Lapidarius

•  Info created by Thomas888b - uploaded by Thomas888b - nominated by Thomas888b -- Thomas888b (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Stronger  Support than everybody else has -- Thomas888b (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Weak  Support Thank you for identification, although I'm not quite sure this is FP quality. I think you should try geocoding it and look into VIC. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Due to popular demand, geocoding has been added.Thomas888b (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Sorry, but not up to the current macro standards. The subject is dark, unsharp and undetailed. Please check the present insect FPs. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment So what? Why do we critically judge a picture by the digital quality (E.G. it's missing a pixel) as oppose the the image quality (E.G. This picture looks nice)? Thomas888b (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment -- Shooting good quality photographs of bees is a difficult business because they are usually fast, nervous and dark. It takes time, patience and technical skill. I'm afraid that "looking nice" is not good enough for reaching FP status. We have a good set of quality criteria and they should be used by all reviewers just before applying the subjective 'wow' or 'no wow' factor. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Strong support I like this photo, it is nice. Posted by a visitor at 21:24 (UTC) Sorry, no anon votes. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose --same idea with AlvesgasparMulazimoglu (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice photo but the bee is really not good, unfortunately. mgeo talk 11:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Oh well, You guys obviously don't appreciate it. I could always take it somewhere where people will apreciate it for it image quality, not critisize it for being a tad too dark. everybody who I have asked say that they think it's really good.Thomas888b 12:51 11 November 2010 (GMT)
  •  Comment -- Please try to understand. It is not "a tad too dark" or just "missing a pixel", it is underexposed and blurry, and almost no detail can be seen in the body and legs of the insect. Yes, composition is nice but a good composition is just one of the important components of a FP. Here are some nice examples taken from or FP galley of Himnoptera: File:Apinae Bombus pascuorum.jpg, File:European honey bee extracts nectar.jpg, File:Osmia rufa couple (aka).jpg, File:Bumblebee October 2007-3.jpg, File:Bombus hypnorum male - side (aka).jpg and File:Apis mellifera carnica worker hive entrance 3.jpg. If you really want to participate in this forum and nominate your pictures you must be prepared to accept the opinion of the reviewers, some of them very good photographers. Yes, you can take your pictures to your friends and family, and be praised for them, but you will learn nothing from it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think the darkness and blurriness are Thomas' fault. There isn't much you can do with a point and shoot camera. Even some of my first macro shots with my SLR turned out badly: File:Syrphus sp.jpg, File:Mating Bee Flies.jpg, and File:Archytas fly.jpg. And my point-and-shoot macros were even worse, much more so than this. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose the bee is dark (per Alvesgaspar). Ggia (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Info -- The use of "Strong support" and "Weak support" templates, which are not considered in our voting system, is making the FP bot to close this nomination before time, as if it didn't have any supports. Plese keep to the normal templates. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Then someone should fix the bot, and so it can count weak votes as only half. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info -- In Commons FPC all votes have the same value -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Bu fotoğrafın arka planı ve kesilme biçimi oldukça kötü. Odaktaki arı da çok net değil. Kompozisyon ise oldukça başarısız. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Restoring votes and closing. Please do not delete votes, or change the closing date (which was the 19th). I advise against renomination, because this is a very compelling vote, but if you insist, you will have to start a fresh nomination at a new nomination page. --99of9 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)