Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Misvormde (Atypische vorm van de) paarse schijnridderzwam (Lepista nuda; synoniemen, Clitocybe nuda, Tricholoma nudum en Agaricus nudus).jpg

File:Misvormde (Atypische vorm van de) paarse schijnridderzwam (Lepista nuda; synoniemen, Clitocybe nuda, Tricholoma nudum en Agaricus nudus).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 06:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Misvormde (Atypische vorm van de) paarse schijnridderzwam (Lepista nuda; synoniemen, Clitocybe nuda, Tricholoma nudum en Agaricus nudus).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Misvormde (Atypische vorm van de) paarse schijnridderzwam (Lepista nuda; synoniemen, Clitocybe nuda, Tricholoma nudum en Agaricus nudus).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi # Lepista nuda. # Family Tricholomataceae.
•  Info: Deformed (Atypical form of) purplish mushroom knight (Lepista nuda; synonyms: Clitocybe nuda, Tricholoma nudum and Agaricus nudus)created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Quite an unusual sight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support good work with high educational value.--Hubertl 11:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per Hubertl. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unusual. But at only 1747 × 1316 px it doesn't even fill an HD monitor screen. In 2016 I don't see any reason why this kind of photo can't be 12MP+. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment photo is from 2013 and is cut to get the deviation as large as possible on screen.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see how 2013 makes any difference. The camera used was 18 megapixels. If you'd taken it closer (or used a longer focal length) then there's no reason this couldn't be frame-filling sharpness 18MP. Instead we have a fairly soft 2.3MP. I think to submit modern photos this small, there's got to be really good justification (like super long telephoto or very high ISO necessary). -- Colin (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 2 mpx is enogh for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I know someone said that 640K ought to be enough for everybody, but... by others above. Yann (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose 2 MP are enough for me but the picture has a purple color cast. --Ralf Roleček 16:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment It is not the fresh color of a sound mushroom. This is a sick mushroom.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi