Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sambar deer Cervus unicolor.jpg

 

Reason

Good quality and EV. Much better composition and quality than any other picture of the species. High resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Sambar (deer), Rusa (genus), Deer

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 06:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well-composed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Weak oppose Lighting not good enough. --Elekhh (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, what part? --Muhammad(talk) 13:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patches of light and shadow on the head, make it less appealing at standard article size. --Elekhh (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well you have to understand that this is in the wild. Sometimes we have to work with what we get. And it's not like we get pictures of these very often. Compare with the former taxobox image File:Sambar walk.jpg --Muhammad(talk) 02:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I acknowledge that, and value that is in the wild. --Elekhh (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice. BTW were you able to ID the fly :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe, so you noticed it? I think it's a housefly --Muhammad(talk) 02:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, mainly due to the patchy lighting. The pose also seems a bit awkward compared to other photos we have, e.g. File:Sambardeer2.jpg. --Avenue (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality of that image is beyond FP standards and resolution is lesser than this picture. I really don't understand the lighting oppose. You supported the image above which has much worse lighting. And how do we know this pose is awkward? Maybe that one is. Maybe they are both normal poses. --Muhammad(talk) 14:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I think the lighting and pose are fine. From the stance and environment, the animal appears to have just scrambled an incline, which they probably do rather a lot. Maedin\^talk 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lighting and composition are not good. The location is obvious a kind of zoo, so there should be a place without patchy lighting. File:Sambardeer2.jpg is superior (though it could be a little sharper) and illustrates this species much better. By the way this one here is a youngster Hive001 contact 17:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the zillionth time, this is not a zoo shot. Really does anybody bother to read? It was taken in a national park and the animal just came out from somewhere inside and climbed over the slope. The patchy lighting is because it sun light unevenly diffused through the tree, something you would not see in a zoo. How can an image be superior if it is less sharper, and the composition is messier? This image has the added benefit(s) of showing the natural environment and food the deer eats as well as appearing in articles. If this is a youngster, then there is place for both the images in the articles --Muhammad(talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read the caption. Sometimes there are confined areas in a National Park and I have to admit that I thought the green stuff was hay that somebody put there to attract them (looks like that on first sight). OK, it's in the wild. But this is, in my opinion, no reason to be gentler. Some excellent pictures were made in the wild (for examples see National Geographic). This is not one of them. Sorry Hive001 contact 18:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FPC has always been about encyclopedic value first followed by aesthetics. So the patchy lighting may not be ideal but it does not detract from the image. The patches are not even over exposed that fur details are lost. It is just a tad brighter, a reflection of reality. And I wouldn't encourage comparing a freely available picture with one taken by NG especially considering the number of hours they (can) spend on jobs and the equipment they use. --Muhammad(talk) 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good EV and technical quality. The lighting and background are somewhat ordinary, but it is a wildlife shot and the animal is well illustrated. Fletcher (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think better images can be found. The subject can be better isolated. The colors and light are not helping this and the DOF can have a stronger role. Abisharan (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Fletcher. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]