Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Baby goats jan 2007.jpg

Image:Baby goats jan 2007.jpg, not featured

•  Info created - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Arad --Arad 14:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Arad 14:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Winiar^✉ 16:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - MPF 20:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dennis Wood 21:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Question Nice, but why downsampled to so small resolution? --WarX 09:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Because Fir0002 wants to sell his works and also because he wants the images to upload faster. --Arad 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm not so sure. On his user page, he states that Wikipedia licences don't prevent his high res pictures from being used commercially, and that is what he disapproves. Benh 14:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Because as it is the case with another good photograph Diliff, that if they put the original size here, no one will buy it from them. They have some rights after all. --Arad 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I've just checked (and should have done that before, sorry). Now I kinda feel like wikipedia is a way to advertise... but maybe I'm wrong and also everyone is a winner here, wikipedia gets outstanding pictures and fir0002 gets some (probably deserved) attention. where have you seen that diliff sells pictures ? Benh 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• In a nomination of a photo of Westminster in Wikipedia, he stated that he no longer wishes to submit high res photo because the licensing doesn't prevent people from using his photo is commercial ways. He never said he wants to sell his photo (as far as I know) but he doesnt want them be used for free with out his permission on some commercial website or something. --Arad 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose bad contrast, right baby almost invisible on background --Karelj 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

But that's the whole point isn't it - wouldn't do much for a baby (vulnerable) goat to be colored a striking red would it? They'd get picked off by eagles, foxes etc in days! --124.176.216.184 10:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

haha. It's so true. That is the whole point. --Arad 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Support --Eloquence 02:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral It's nice enough, but is it really featured quality? The white on white isn't good, especially between its front legs. (I can overlook the fact that the tail is blurry.) The contrast between the two goats is nice, as is the general coloring of the LH goat. No big problems, I agree, but given how common baby goats are, is it really something special? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --WarX 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Uploading of downsampled works is for me proof of bad faith and should be punished not awarded!!
•  Support -- Belmonte77 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose pale, nothing very interesting --Leafnode 06:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Pedroserafin 10:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I have asked Fir0002 here if he'd consider uploading larger pictures, as at this size they are unlikely to be promoted as Commons FPs. Others may like to comment there as well. --MichaelMaggs 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose until a larger version can be provided. --MichaelMaggs 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose no mitigating circumstances for smallish size Lycaon 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Cute goats with opposite colors -- Lerdsuwa 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - cute, and nice composition too Husky ^{(talk to me)} 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice Easter postcard! --Nino Barbieri 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose No strong mitigating reasons for size. --Digon3 13:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)