Wiki143:Featured picture candidates/Mandrill

Mandrill

File:Mandril.jpg

A Mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx) in the soft glow of the mornings light

Reason

Meets the critera and adds significant value to all of the articles in which it appears

Articles this image appears in

Mandrill
Mandrillus
Cercopithecinae
Papionini

Creator

Malene Thyssen

• Support as nominator — Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Striking photogenic image of the colorful Mandrill in seemingly contemplation, It would make for a nice featured picture. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, looks to be sharp enough. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sharp, but too dark on the right. Reywas92^Talk_{How's my editing?} 18:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment though the right is slightly shadowed, what does the picture lose because of this? --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Encyclopedic value, I'd assume. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 15:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Though the shading is a bit different, I think there is enough there to identify the species based on the photo. In addition, it's a great shot, with wonderful aesthetics. --Cody.Pope 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Sharp enough --St.daniel ^Talk 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

File:Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak Oppose Love the lighting and subject, but it's just too over sharpened for my liking --Fir0002 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose A great picture, very artistic, but I feel it is a poor depiction of the subject and not very encyclopedic. 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The former of your oppositions may be true, but certainly not the latter. I suppose it's questionable what qualifies as "encyclopedic". -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it would be more "encyclopedic" if it were a full-body shot in better lighting, to better help the reader grasp the animal's size and shape. Jellocube27 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - weak, only due to the effects of downsampling or oversharpening artefacts in the fur - a great image otherwise. Artistic and encyclopedic are NOT mutually exclusive! --Janke | Talk 07:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Nice picture --Ba'Gamnan | Talk 12:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To mediate for the concerns of over-sharpening, we might ask the up-loader to resize the original using bicubic smoother, or another setting. I mean only resize it to it's present size, not smaller which is why we'd need the original to do it. --Cody.Pope 11:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• File:Pictogram voting oppose.svg Oppose – It's a lovely composition, but the right crop is too tight. Centy 14:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to excessive oversharpening. I would support a version that's properly post-processed. -- Moondigger 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose whoa that's a lot of sharpening. No thanks. --YFB ¿ 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• File:Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per comments above and issues that image isn't sharp enough. 'Tis sad, it is a fascinating image.... Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} 05:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)