Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black squirrel carrying a walnut in its mouth, close view.jpg

File:Black squirrel carrying a walnut in its mouth, close view.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 06:05:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Black squirrel carrying a walnut in its mouth, close view.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black squirrel carrying a walnut in its mouth, close view.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
•  Info created & uploaded by User:Grendelkhan - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support - How about some urban wildlife? This is a larger-than-life photo. I judge it primarily at 270% of my laptop's screen, though full size gives you IMO an amazing larger-than-life view of the squirrel's head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tempted to FPX this. Dreadful quality. Tail cropped. Snapshot composition with corner of path visible. A common, easily photographed subject. -- Colin (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, really? In a closeup that concentrates more on the head, I don't think it's necessary to include the whole tail. I'm really surprised you find the quality terrible, considering that it's larger-than-life and looks good to me, at any rate, at about life size. Of course, if others agree with you, I will withdraw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see how "larger than life" is a relevant factor. A photo taken at closest focus distance using a typical macro lens with 1:1 reproduction will fill the frame with a 2.4cm width subject, which then gets blown up onto a 27" monitor, and if viewed 100% could be 1.5 metres across. There isn't any optical reasons why subject size alone should matter at all. -- Colin (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• As usual, searching categories for FPs is totally useless; Commons search for FPs, QIs and VIs almost never works anymore (is anyone trying to fix that problem?). However, there is the gallery at com:fp. Charles' File:Grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) 02.jpg is superior to this. I'll give someone else a chance to vote before doing anything, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose Not a FPX, but I was more hesitating between Oppose and Weak oppose :-) The action is very interesting and the image big enough to be downsized. What makes the nomination fail in my view is really this composition. Cut tail and visible corner of the path, yes, but also too much space in front. Many of the FPs of squirrels have a (surprisingly) low resolution Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Sciuridae_(Squirrels), for example this old File:Streifenhoernchen.jpg only 1,8 Mpx. Need delisting perhaps, but their compositions are all better -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose Weak technical quality and pedestrian composition. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose The level of detail in the fur is nowhere near an FP, I wouldn't even vote for this in QIC.--Peulle (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Info Hey, it's an honor just to be nominated! Thanks! (Someday I'll take a shot that wonderful; it'll happen!) grendel|khan 16:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your votes. You guys might want to change the photo's status to "Discuss" at QIC. Sorry about not moving this to the log right now, but there's no reason to delay a decision. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)