Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mandrill

Mandrill[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support, looks to be sharp enough. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharp, but too dark on the right. Reywas92^Talk_{How's my editing?} 18:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment though the right is slightly shadowed, what does the picture lose because of this? --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Encyclopedic value, I'd assume. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 15:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support Sharp enough --St.daniel ^Talk 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Love the lighting and subject, but it's just too over sharpened for my liking --Fir0002 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Weak support Nice picture --Ba'Gamnan | Talk 12:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose – It's a lovely composition, but the right crop is too tight. Centy 14:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to excessive oversharpening. I would support a version that's properly post-processed. -- Moondigger 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whoa that's a lot of sharpening. No thanks. --YFB ¿ 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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