Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blue eye

Blue eye

Original -

Reason: I always thought this was a nice HQ image. And I think the light reflection gives you a sense of its shape.
Articles this image appears in: Eye color
Creator: 8thstar

Support as nominator ^8th star 01:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Would be eye-deal if it included slightly more of the tear duct, but this is a gvery good quality capture. I know, because I've tried to take a similar shot before. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose It's, er, eye-catching, but the "pose" is unnaturally wide and as Diliff noted, the tear duct is cut off. Since the EV is based on its use in eye color, I think a shot of several different colours would make have more value. Matt Deres (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support You need a somewhat wide "pose" to get the full iris. Great quality, but wish there was a little more space near the tear duct. Spencer^T♦^C 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support de Bivort 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Glare, cut off tear duct, and tight on the right too.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Glare and crop issues. crassic!^[talk] 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Good picture. Pose not quite natural and quite a bit of in-camera noise-reduction that smeared out detail (like all point-and-shoots), but very nice photo with reasonably high enc nonetheless. --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Skin tone around eye, especially in lower left, is very washed-out. Is that unavoidable? Also, I think the image would be more encyclopedic (and could be used in more articles) if the tear duct were shown. How did you avoid having the camera reflected in the eye? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The reflections really don't convince me, and the cut-off tearduct is irritating. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As above -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could have been done better. Too much grain and blur on the iris. Lipton sale (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only on the grounds that it would be so easy to recreate this shot and fix the existing problems. Would gladly support a new one. SingCal 07:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]