Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepidotus variabilis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2020 at 00:47:46 (UTC)

Original – Crepidotus variabilis, specimen is 9 mm (0.35 in) in diameter.

Reason: High quality lead image. Closeup of Crepidotus variabilis, a fungi species. This specimen is 9mm in diameter. The species doesn't have its own article, the image is used in the genus article Crepidotus.
Articles in which this image appears: Crepidotus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Fungi
Creator: Famberhorst

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you'd be better off nominating one of his many FPs. This one is not one of the best. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I suggest you do your homework first and check the file description page before making statements like that. This was voted 17 to nil on Commons [1]. This is just a cropped version, cropped for infobox (too much empty space for infobox). Also, don't cast aspersions, be specific when you comment, calling something "not the best" doesn’t mean anything, it's just an aspersion unless you say why, do you object the focus, the colors, or what? Lastly, Commons FP is not a requirement. I know you want it to be, but it is not. Bammesk (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Steady on, my friend! I didn't object, I commented. I didn't spot it was FP because the file description page makes no mention of FP because you uploaded a crop of a Famberhorst FP. I can't be expected to notice that it is derived from an existing file - that's not "homework"! You should mention this in the nomination "Reason" to help voters. I didn't vote for the FP as it is too soft for my taste and has a weird halo, but I do not oppose Commons FPs here on technical grounds as the majority decision has been made. I am not obliged to support though. You are of course entitled to upload modified versions of other people's photos, but I hate it when people do it to mine. I think one should always ask the authors if they are still active. Also, you've made a mistake on the catgegories as you have duplicated the image in FP categories. Your crop is not FP at Commons, so this and the user categories need to be removed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The onus isn't on nominators to show you a Commons FP nom, Commons FP is not a requirement here at en-WP. When you comment, the onus is on you to do it right (regardless of vote). You suggested the image quality isn't up to Commons FP, wrong, it is, and wrong because Commons FP is not a requirement, and then you didn't say why, another wrong, and this last wrong is a big deal. "This is not one of the best" on its own is meaningless. It is an opinion, but it says nothing about the image. When you write a negative critique, say the specifics upfront, say it is the focus and the halo, and say it upfront, not after a back and forth. . . . . Uploading a crop as a separate file doesn't need an ask. . . . . The categories were automatically assigned by CropTool, not me. They were inherited from the original. You can drop a note at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, there may be a reason for it. Bammesk (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]