Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alpine Ibex

Alpine Ibex

 * Reason:Encyclopedic value, composition, natural habitat, good technicals.
 * Articles this image appears in:Alpine Ibex, Slovenia
 * Creator:Chmehl


 * Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I would expect FP-level photo to be more like this - a more aesthetic angle and a bit more detail. For the record though, I had the same trouble capturing sheep, as they tended to keep turning their bodies away from me as an instinctual safety mechanism, so I understand this this wild animal would be difficult to photograph. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do share Diliff's concerns about it, specificly for me it's missing it's legs in the high grass. Also this is a very young specimen I would prefer a FP showing the majesty of a alpha male like this for example. There is a very stark difference in it's horns from the young and aged adult. — raeky ( talk 18:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction, it's a female specimen. My opinion still stands that I think an adult male would make a better FP, and with the cut-off legs I don't think I can support it. — raeky ( talk 19:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason why an article couldn't have both a female and a male FP. More importantly, and I know this could become a broader debate, for me a photo of a wild animal in its natural ecosystem tends to have higher EV than one in the zoo, even if at the cost of some details of its fur or bottom part of its feet. Guess is just my way of seeing the world. Elekhh (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * theres no reason why you couldn't take a picture of it in the natural world that did include it's legs not hidden in high grass. — raeky ( talk 20:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't hold that against it, personally. Shots with this sort of context are worth many times the value of zoo shots and IMO a good deal of leeway should be allowed for obstructions like grass, branches, etc. It's a great shame that this one has been butchered (digitally, I mean..) with aggressive sharpening and "unclean" conversion to jpeg, as it used up all its brownie points mitigating that. mikaultalk 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, per the earlier comment by Papa Lima Whiskey, basically? ;) Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I think it's a beautiful image that captures the animal very well. And it's great to see one that isn't in a zoo. -- Silversmith Hewwo 23:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, per Silversmith. High EV in illustrating an animal in its natural habitat. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The background gives a good idea of the environment, and the grass doesn't subtract in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support as Noodle snacks, the background is good. The missing foot/hoof is a bother. --H92110 (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hidden lower legs, chromatic aberration, and artefacts from use of a bad resizing algorithm, or possibly sharpening (onboard?). Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Legs do not bother me nearly as much as posture, which I find to be a poor choice. Also, is the eye really that color or is this some sort of redeye? Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  19:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that you wouldn't choose that posture for a Homo Sapiens, for the Ibex however it well reaveals its whole body including tail. Elekhh (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The angle is as such as that it throws off the proportions of the body. I dislike that for side view shots. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  22:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. The missing foot; otherwise good. -- JN 466  22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a grazing animal. Its natural behaviour is standing in grass and eating it. This is not a studio shot. In the past it has been practice to accept that animals in the wild often have small parts of their bodies obscured by their natural environments, and for grazing animals to have received no objections based on grass around their hooves. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a look at Bouquetin01.jpg for comparison. It avoids most of the flaws of the nominated image. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do hear what you're saying. Such an image is possible. We could hold out and oppose this on the assumption that one day we will have it. The composition of that image isn't great, and the direct sunlight on rock and shadow makes for a mix of harsh over and under-exposure. The overexposed rock is in turn distracting from the subject of the image. That's a lot to sacrifice just for some hooves, which in this case aren't all that visible anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyharmless (talk • contribs) 01:29, 21 November 2009
 * It's not the grass; it is that the hindfeet would be out of shot even if the animal were standing on rock. It's a (minor) compositional issue rather than the animal being obscured. -- JN 466  01:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much irrelevant, isn't it? Had the feet been visible, the composition would have been adjusted, but, as they are not visible there's no real reason to complain in my opinion. Cowtowner (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't get a useful sense from the picture of how long the animal's hindlegs are. This would be different if you could see the part of the meadow its hindlegs were standing on. -- JN 466  17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Given that this is how the animal would most often be seen, I see no reason to oppose it for the reasons given above. They are products of the environment, in a way we should be thankful that they remain undisturbed. Cowtowner (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Composition and artefacts.  Mae din \talk 17:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)