Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Snow Leopard Looking Up.jpg

File:Snow Leopard Looking Up.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2016 at 12:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Snow Leopard Looking Up.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Snow Leopard Looking Up.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
•  Info created by Eric Kilby - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- The Photographer (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 17:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - Snow leopards are very rare, but only part of the leopard's face is in focus, so I really don't know how to vote. I will probably abstain and leave this to everyone else's discretion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You can't compare a "focus" of wild animals with a common zoo animal or a building. Circumstantial factors should be taken. To say that this picture is unfocused is absurd, especially because of the difficulty and some evaluators are not able to distinguish, rigid minds that evaluate all photos alike.--The Photographer (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What possessed you to personally attack me for abstaining with an explanation in two instances? And since this photo was apparently shot at a zoo, should I then vote against it instead of abstaining? I'll make my own decisions about how to vote and why, if you don't mind terribly. And you might want to review my remarks in the thread about the vizcacha picture, since you're really so interested in my reasons for abstaining, which in that case were by no means solely intellectual. Finally, I'll simply say that in cases in which a consensus here decides that a photo of a rare wild animal is for whatever reason too flawed to be featured, that's what Valued Images are for. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've decided to  Oppose a feature, after all: Too shallow a depth of field and overly blurred, somewhat annoying bokeh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Description and categorization on file page should be improved. It should mention, e.g., that it was taken in Roger Williams Park Zoo, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. It is a zoo shot. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Comment My comment was about Poco a poco rabbit picture. --The Photographer (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I had not seen that nomination. The request to improve the file page for this nomination is still relevant though. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Support − Meiræ 07:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ikan. Other similar FP of captive felines (like this) do not require allowances for rarity of subject. The depth of field is at least 2/3 stops too shallow in the most important part of the photo. -- Ram-Man 11:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not enough in focus. Charles (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not enough DoF, per others. A crop might have worked, but I don't think that's what the photographer was trying for. Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Love the expression - eyes were immediately drawn to it. Nice, nice shot. Atsme 📞 22:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)