Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:AD2009Sep20 Amanita muscaria 02.jpg

File:AD2009Sep20 Amanita muscaria 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2016 at 09:16:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:AD2009Sep20 Amanita muscaria 02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:AD2009Sep20 Amanita muscaria 02.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
•  Info created & uploaded by Bernie Kohl - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Mild  Oppose - The mushroom is very interesting to look at, but I tend to think it's not sharp enough to be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Really? The sharpness looks to me quite nice. Tomer T (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Matter of taste, I guess. The stem is quite sharp, but I'd like the cap to be sharper. But in addition, I'm not so happy with the bokeh on the left side. Let's see what others think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see any sharpness issue here. Very good picture IMO. --Code (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Such a lovely shade of gold, so warm and inviting that you want to reach in and eat it ... but as I recalled from the Linnaean name, and had confirmed in the file description, you'd very much regret it although you will probably live to tell the tale. As such, this image perfectly captures the allure of dangerous things, like "Waterfalls" or U2's "An Cat Dubh". And while I'd normally agree with Ikan about the unsharpness and, while still supporting, suggest some of it could be cropped out, I think in this case that I'd keep it. Not only does enhance the appeal I noted, suggesting the viewer is so enraptured by the mushroom s/he is neglecting everything else, it also calls to mind the hallucinatory qualities of the fungus also discussed in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - That's really interesting, Daniel. I'll think about that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - I still find the bokeh at full size a bit of a bad trip, so I'll remain the odd man out and continue to oppose, although I expect this picture to be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support INeverCry 18:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Per Code Ali Zifan 23:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Bokeh and sharpness are fine for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment The WB looks too yellow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support The WB depends on where you sample it. I checked the foot and that came out ok, the white is very slightly yellower on the top, but I think that's called afternoon sunlight. Would have preferred if the bokeh was the same "height" on both sides since it seems to tilt a bit now, but it's not a deal breaker for me. w.carter-Talk 17:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi