Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Amur Tiger Panthera tigris altaica Cub Walking 1500px.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image:Amur Tiger Panthera tigris altaica Cub Walking 1500px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  •  Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. Edit by Lycaon. 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Siberian Tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) cub walking in the snow.
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too bad quality, the head is very noisy, plus zoo image - Keta 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I ask is that you consider the web quality and usefulness when evaluated at 2MP, rather than the useless 100% that no one is ever going to actually use this at. If it was printed at a higher DPI it would look better. Categorizing this as bad is overly picky, IMO. As for it being a zoo picture, it is quite useful. This image has survived on en:Siberian Tiger while this FP was removed. -- Ram-Man 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the quality argument of Keta because commons is targetting at print media and not only at web quality but I wished that people would finally stay away from this stupid zoo argument. This is actually a Siberien Tiger and zoos are part of the reality as well as nature. There is no reason to declassify a picture because of the location where it was shot. Andreas Tille 05:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I approve when images are great for printing, to say that is the Commons target does not sync with the guidelines. If that were the case, we wouldn't have a 2MP limit (we even allow smaller from time to time). Even if I were to ignore that point, on my 100dpi 16"x12" monitor, this image still looks fine. It would look even better printed at that size. I've said this about numerous recent nominations, but this is just overly picky. -- Ram-Man 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is wrong about a zoo image?! I totally agree with Andreas Tille concerning this. --AngMoKio 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say, or meant to, that the picture is bad, just that there are some concerns with noise for example, as others also noted. And for being a zoo image, of course it's a personal matter. I have no problem at all with zoo pictures, and I think that their value is great in most cases. However, for FP I'm looking for something else when it's about wildlife pictures, it's not only a good picture what counts, for me the location is also very important, i.e. if it has been taken in the natural habitat. In very rare cases would National Geographic accept a zoo image, and that's the kind of idea I have with all this, I'm looking for the best wildlife pictures. I say again, I'm not arguing about their value or usefulness, definitely they're quite useful, and of course perfect QI candidates, but in general I won't support them for FP, except for some rare cases. This may sound stupid to you, Andreas, but it's a valid argument for me. - Keta 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Noise and crop. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support amore sbalorditivo esso. Jina Lee 04:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too bad quality, the head is very noisy --Beyond silence 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose missing light, low contrast, noisy.. in general low quality -LadyofHats 17:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Amur_Tiger_Panthera_tigris_altaica_Cub_Walking_1500px.jpg&oldid=141880537"