Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blurry cat

Blurry cat

I noticed that Focus (optics) did not have an image to show imagery without focus so I uploaded this photo which I think does a good job of adding to the article.

• Nominate and support. -
  Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Opppose yes it's useful for the article, but I don't think this could be described to "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" by any stretch of the imagination -- anybody can take a blurry image ;). A blurry image is in addition by it's nature not particulary "pleasing to the eye". chowells 17:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with above Calderwood 17:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A joke entry, I assume? - Adrian Pingstone 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Its mainly motion blur too, not out of focus, so has nothing to do with optical focus and doesn't even illustrate the article it is in. You can tell because the whiskers seem to relatively in focus but 'stuttery' and segmented and my guess is that it is due to the lighting (possibly the TV?) flickering at 50-60hz. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Funny, I was just wondering the other day if pictures which show errors in photography would get support. Looks like no. - JPM | 00:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with above Mikeo 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A good image for this article might have the foreground out of focus but the background clearly in focus. Or perhaps vice versa. Something to illustrate the idea better. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I suppose this picture adds to the article, but a better example would've been this picture and a properly focused picture side-by-side, for comparison. Definitely not FP worthy though.--Jonthecheet 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Diliff, it's not even that out of focus. Bziomek 17:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Was thinking along the lines of zafiroblue05's comment before I read it! Halsteadk 19:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Briseis 13:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose At first I thought the nominator was a newbie, but he wasn't! DaGizza^{Chat ©} 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not FP worthy in my book. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above, just isn't a FP. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 05:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with above. enochlau (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]