Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eristalis March 2010-1.jpg

File:Eristalis March 2010-1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2010 at 00:02:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Eristalis March 2010-1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eristalis March 2010-1.jpg

•  Info A male hoverfly (Eristalis similis). Brand new from Spring 2010. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unsharp and I don't like the angle. Did you retouch the thorax? --Muhammad (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Unsharp? The head (including the antennae), thorax and base of wing are sharp. With the available DOF (some milimeters) it is not possible to have the whole animal in focus. No, the thorax was not retouched. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Compare with and . I would expect a similar sharpness --Muhammad (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't see a noticeable difference. Except in the size. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
        • DOF and sharpness is similar for all 3 photos, but the angle for Muhammad's makes it less of a distraction. --ianaré (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --LadyofHats (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Another bug picture with defficient photographic technique. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Muhammad. Steven Walling 19:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like the background--Llorenzi (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, no wow IMO. —kallerna™ 18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - a quality image, to be sure, but just not enough wow for FP. Jonathunder (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Llorenzi, the background is a little dull --Schnobby (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Background is very badly chosen, subject is plain and technique is flawed. Sorry. --Lawboy25 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Just one vote per user, please -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of very poor technical quality: sharpness, background, DOF --Lawboy25 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment -- This is still a calm warning for you to stop the harassment. Next one will be a formal request for blocking. Now, please remove the FPX template since it does not apply to this nomination. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is a warning back to stop your abusive tone. I remind you, it is against the rules to remove the FPX as nominator (something you have done already). This picture is of poor quality and does not meet the guidelines; FPX is on merit alone. Please don't take it personally. Thanks. --Lawboy25 (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me explain (or read the guidelines yourself): the FPX template can only be used when there are no support votes either than the nominator's. Understand now? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)