- Reason
- Too soft, low quality, unsharpened, blurred, tilted, and I think you know everything else...
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/two-butterflies
- Previous nominator informed
[1]- Nominator
- Zoo Fari
- Delist — Zoo Fari 03:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Weak delist Slightly soft and small. --
Muhammad
(talk)
04:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- It would be a pleasure if we can get someone to sharpen it (and perhaps adjust contrast). Zoo Fari 05:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- comment - since this is my pic I won't make the obvious vote. But I very strongly disagree with "It would be a pleasure if we can get someone to sharpen it". If you don't mind faking these things, why not go the whole hog and use photoshop to mirror a butterfly - so much easier?
William M. Connolley (
talk)
07:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- May I ask why you disagree? I made a simple note for the image to be improved, and I get back a complain. I don't restore anymore, and I don't see a problem with that. Zoo Fari 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Meets minimum size requirement. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 08:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Commentthe original is very sharp it is really just a resizing problem because the detail is too fine for the thimbnail. -- BozMo talk 10:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not excellent on the criteria here, so please weight my comment appropriately, but the sharpness in the actual image here is significantly better than in the thumbnail. If the criteria say that the thumbnail and not the image itself has to meet a strong sharpness crtierion, then that seems rather daft to me. Fritzpoll ( talk) 10:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Reviews should be based on full size, not thumbnail. wadester 16 14:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment While I wasn't judging to a thumbnail, it is still soft and underexposed. Zoo Fari 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delist. Heavy JPEG artifacting, underexposed, flat lighting, full resolution image is rather soft. Kaldari ( talk) 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delist. Soft, composition and detail not of current standards. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delist - Too blurry. - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ... _Ξ_ . -- 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Delisted Seems as if this one goes... -- wadester 16 16:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Too soft, low quality, unsharpened, blurred, tilted, and I think you know everything else...
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/two-butterflies
- Previous nominator informed
-
[1]
- Nominator
- Zoo Fari
- Delist — Zoo Fari 03:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Weak delist Slightly soft and small. --
Muhammad
(talk)
04:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- It would be a pleasure if we can get someone to sharpen it (and perhaps adjust contrast). Zoo Fari 05:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- comment - since this is my pic I won't make the obvious vote. But I very strongly disagree with "It would be a pleasure if we can get someone to sharpen it". If you don't mind faking these things, why not go the whole hog and use photoshop to mirror a butterfly - so much easier?
William M. Connolley (
talk)
07:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- May I ask why you disagree? I made a simple note for the image to be improved, and I get back a complain. I don't restore anymore, and I don't see a problem with that. Zoo Fari 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Meets minimum size requirement. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 08:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Commentthe original is very sharp it is really just a resizing problem because the detail is too fine for the thimbnail. -- BozMo talk 10:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not excellent on the criteria here, so please weight my comment appropriately, but the sharpness in the actual image here is significantly better than in the thumbnail. If the criteria say that the thumbnail and not the image itself has to meet a strong sharpness crtierion, then that seems rather daft to me. Fritzpoll ( talk) 10:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Reviews should be based on full size, not thumbnail. wadester 16 14:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment While I wasn't judging to a thumbnail, it is still soft and underexposed. Zoo Fari 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delist. Heavy JPEG artifacting, underexposed, flat lighting, full resolution image is rather soft. Kaldari ( talk) 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delist. Soft, composition and detail not of current standards. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delist - Too blurry. - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ... _Ξ_ . -- 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Delisted Seems as if this one goes... -- wadester 16 16:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)