Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papión chacma (Papio ursinus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 65.jpg

File:Papión chacma (Papio ursinus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 65.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 22:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Papión chacma (Papio ursinus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 65.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papión chacma (Papio ursinus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 65.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Primates_(Primates)
•  Info Young Chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) playing around, Chobe National Park, Botswana. c/u/n by me, Poco² 22:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 22:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Understandably not perfect given the high zoom, but overall more than good enough considering the difficulty of the capture. Another good one from your safari. Cmao20 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --BoothSift 03:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Neutral now per below--BoothSift 04:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 06:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Sorry for being the party pooper again, but long focal length or not, that looks pretty noisy for a 5DS R at 400 ISO. It's mostly luminance noise, so one might forgive it, but in combination with the over-all softness and remnants of CA (I blame the 2x TC), I'm less than wowed by the quality. It's not bad and actually looks quite OK at screen size, it's just not great. And the same is true for the content: It's not bad at all, but I wouldn't call it outstanding considering what else we've got. --El Grafo (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 11:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose a bit per El Grafo, but what is bothering me more is that the two are partly obscured by the tree so we don't get a good view of their play. – Lucas 06:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose the composition and size/sharpness of the subject. Charles (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment - The con arguments are good. I'm no longer sure, so I've struck out my vote and am likely to abstain from voting. I like the photo, but I don't know for sure that it should be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I find the branches way too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm fine with the luma noise in the background, but the overall softness is a bit disturbing and I'd also blame the TC for that. --Granada (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• What does TC stand for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• That's the tele converter. --Granada (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /BoothSift 22:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)