Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).JPG

File:Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 14:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).JPG

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Caviidae (Cavies)
•  Info A high resolution and excellent quality photo of the capybara, the world's largest rodent species. There are three other FPs which all have their merits but I think you'll agree this one is very different and probably works better as a clear illustration of the species (it is the infobox pic on ENwiki, surely for that reason) created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose 16MP isn't "High resolution" in 2021. This is half a metre of rodent, not some wee insect. The image is a rather ordinary QI scene and the animal has its back to us, which isn't ideal. The grass surround makes it hard to tell how tall it is. This is a semi-aquatic animal that lives in groups of 10-20, so perhaps we should reward capturing those aspects now. For example File:Banho matinal.JPG shows a family entering the water. Btw, it is lead picture on WP because Charles put it there ;-). -- Colin (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• You are right that Charles put it there, but I do wonder whether that really matters; the fact that it has been the stable lead image in the article for several years is a testament to its quality, I feel. Otherwise I accept your arguments though I still feel this is FP quality. Cmao20 (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• You must have a different experience to me on Wikipedia. e.g Rat with File:Rattus norvegicus 1.jpg (0.09 Megapixel) for 13 years. Generally, if it looks ok in thumbnail, nobody on Wikipedia will care, and only us FP photographers tend to care that the linked image looks good full screen or full size. -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I understand that obviously it doesn't indicate by itself that a photo is of FP quality. Cmao20 (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose I appreciate Charles's the nomination, and I acknowledge his Charles's work on this, but ... his Cmao's argument makes a better case for VI than FP. It's an excellent "this is what one looks like" image for me, even taking Colin's point about the background into account. It is so successful at that, however, that it normalizes the creature's appearance to the point of depriving the image of any wow ... it looks here like something I'd expect to see hanging out in my yard. (and yes, of course, I realize that statement reflects a particular geographic perspective, and that some of the fauna that visit my yard during the average 24-hour period would indeed seem exotic and strange to people from elsewhere in the world, excluding perhaps the four birds in and around cages near me that are native in the wild to either Australia or Indonesia (and a fifth indigenous to North America)). Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Case, note that this is Cmao20's nomination, not Charles's. -- Colin (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: Thanks ... appropriately amended. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Fair enough, thanks for all reviews. Cmao20 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)