Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thomas Bresson - Punaise mangeant une chenille sur des orties (by).jpg

File:Thomas Bresson - Punaise mangeant une chenille sur des orties (by).jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Thomas Bresson - uploaded by Thomas Bresson - nominated by Thomas Bresson --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, image is much too small Lycaon (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Strong mitigating circumstances. Flying Freddy (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose to Lycaon.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Great image, but too small. --JalalV (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I like it even though it's a bit small. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I withdraw my vote as this was renominated by the same person with such a short interval. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Please be serious here. Nothing has changed since last time, so why the renomination? Lycaon (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Support The picture is really a good picture, it has technical merit on one hand and without being a bug-o-logist, I can appreciate how this image can illustrate an article or be useful in an educational project, which is I suppose, the objective of Wikipedia. Pixel wise it may be small, but if you enlarge it at the pixel level in photoshop, it retains a lot of fine detail and it is definitely much larger than a lot of images used to illustrate electronic articles. Even for print work it is useful. I see a lot of much smaller pictures that do not necessarily lose value due to their size. On the aesthetic side it really is a fine photograph. Good color, texture, etc., and best of all, a key moment in the insects´ life. I much rather have this picture than none at all. Does this image, despite the shortcomings of size, according to some, contribute to the goals of this effort and to the advancement of knowledge? I think it does. Very strong mitigating circumstances. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose the image was decline in August 2008, the image hasnt changed since then nor have the FP standards been altered to give reason for this image to be renominated. Gnangarra 02:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • •  Comment So what if the image was nominated before and declined? Does that mean anything? Van Gough was not famous until after his death, and then people discovered his genius! What if the reviewers were not qualified back in august? I mean, if collective hysteria is possible, collective bad judgement is definitely within the possibilities. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      •  Comment I see no real problem in renominating it, but I think it should be by a new person and after a longer period as to not encourage people to just renominate things that are borderline FP enough times such that it just passes. To me it has nothing to do with the image, just the nomination process. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Gnangarra : I haven't got full size image. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Are you just shooting at low res then? J.smith (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      •  Comment I havent asked for a larger image, I;m saying I see no reason for a new nomination, the image hasnt been altered and the criteria havent changed. I'd be happy to reconsider the image if ComputerHotline can explain what makes it different from the last nomination. Gnangarra 15:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose This undoutably a valuable addition to our project, however, it fails out most basic technical requirements. I understand if ComputerHotline doesn't want to release the full-res (or higher res) version of this file, but if he does, I would support it at a new FP nomination. -J.smith (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose low res + renom -- Gorgo (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Much too small. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too small. Georgez (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose too small, sorry (again) --ianaré (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)