Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ant on moss hill

Ant on moss hill
It's got a kind of "looking out into the void" quality which I like. If you don't like this one I have a smilar one: Image:Ant on mosshill.jpg
 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice, but it isn't linked to on any articles. I'd reccomend commons FPC process, if this picture isn't being used anywhere. This link is Broken 13:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So, it was slapped into a couple of articles. What does this picture add there? Do we know what kind of ant it is (species)? Does it serve a purpose in the Ant or Moss article which no other picture is currently filling? I'd be inclined to say no. The picture is very artisitc and dramatic so, I'd vote for a resubmission to the commons. This link is Broken 23:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's good, but the background might be too unfocused for me. The alternate picture isn't as good, I think. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What User:BrokenSegue said.— Encephalon |  &zeta;   02:33:06, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Lord Voldemort. Enochlau 03:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Fredrik | talk 19:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too much bokeh; not enough focus. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I admit, it is a very beautiful and striking picture, I love the focus and the colours are beautiful and vibrant. It is a photo i really do lilke. But aswell as being a great photo, it doesent really contribute to any article. Something likt this would suit better in an art gallery over FP ;) Tekana | Talk 08:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice pic, makes a very, very nice desktop background for me. If a smaller aperture (bigger number) was used the image will just be too busy. -- antilived 11:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately. Agree with Enochlau. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞  15:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

