Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:WolffiaArrhiza2.jpg

Wolffia arrhiza
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 16:42:27 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good illustrarion, high quality
 * Articles in which this image appears:Wolffia, Wolffia arrhiza
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Plants/Others
 * Creator:Fice


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The human finger greatly debases the image. Having it on a plastic slide would've been a better choice.--Nanoman657 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At least the finger adds scale. --Dschwen 19:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Weak oppose. I don't feel as strongly anti-finger as Nanoman, but I am afraid that I don't see this as optimal. A great illustration for the article, but I don't think it's FP-quality. Lots of little dots of overexposure, focus isn't perfect- there must be a better way to photograph this subject. However, I'm interested to see what some of our prolific photographers think. J Milburn (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment' What makes you say the focus isn't perfect? 126.109.231.71 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's probably the apeture, not the focus. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that, exactly? The aperture controls how much is in focus. The subject at hand (pun?) is perfectly in focus, as far as I can see. The DOF in the background looks nice too. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly an expert, I'm having trouble pinpointing the issue in the correct terminology. The individual plants do not seem completely sharp. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I like the finger, it demonstrates what the plant looks like to the human eye. Weak because the image quality isn't great - the aperture is too small. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per J Milburn. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per JJ --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  23:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per JJH. Clegs (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support --Muhammad (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose pretty much per J Milburn. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per J Milburn. The lighting is just too harsh.  God Emperor Talk  23:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks great, I think the fingers are better than a plastic slide because they provide a much more immediate understanding of just how small they are. I disagree with the complaints of lighting, etc - no big issues as far as I can see. Seems perfectly focused on the matter at hand too.126.109.231.71 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not signed in. Tomer T (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see that listed as a requirement to vote?126.109.231.71 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph at the top of this page "anonymous votes are generally disregarded". Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per J Milburn. The blown out highlights are painful. For a common subject like this on it is also fairly easy to create a better version of this image. - Zephyris Talk 17:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Great photo and addition but not FP quality. gren グレン 04:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)