Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antílope acuático (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 51.jpg

File:Antílope acuático (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 51.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2020 at 11:38:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Antílope acuático (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 51.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antílope acuático (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 51.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
•  Info Exemplar of Waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus) in Chobe National Park, Botswana. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Have had my eye on nominating this one myself. The back of the waterbuck is a tiny bit less sharp than the head, but ultimately this is a >40mpx image and still fairly sharp everywhere at full size, so it's the kind of content we are lucky to have. Cmao20 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose lack of sharpness. --Ivar (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Without wishing to be disrespectful to your opinion, I do think this is a little harsh considering the high resolution of the image. To make my point clear, from this image one can produce this 10.5 mpx downsample which is sharp all over. To me voting against this image because of sharpness at 100% is just penalising the author for providing us with a full-resolution shot. Cmao20 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Cmao20, may I add something to that? This is a wildlife image and not taken in the zoo around the corner. It was also taken from a considerable distance, as this animals are pretty shy, and for that I had to use a 600mm and yes, as you say, I am offering a big file, namely, over 50 MPx. I don't find the image lacking sharpness, the shot had to be handheld and for that I had to increase the ISO a bit. Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment zoo or not, this image is not sharp. ISO 400 at almost midday sunlight should not have any effect on the result. FP should be the finest on Commons and imho this is not it. --Ivar (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment - Definitely sharp enough, IMO. My only issue with the photo, really, is a nitpicky one: I'd prefer for the waterbuck's face not to be partially criss-crossed by grass. That's a very difficult thing to avoid, but it's what's making the difference for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment It's probably not sharp enough, but not enough for me to oppose. The grass in front of the face is not ideal. Hand-held 600mm must be tricky and probably explains the softness. Charles (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agree -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose I don't have a problem with the sharpness, really, and the other technical issue I noticed (posterization on the nose and some CA on the droplets) is too small to be a problem. But this image just doesn't feel special enough, it doesn't stand out from other pictures of four-legged animals drinking from puddles in the wild. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)