Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Boer Goat

Boer Goat

 * Articles this image appears in:boer goat
 * The version with the tag is a com:fp, I originally left the tag because that's the animals most common state to have a tag (or some other brand or hole in it’s ear) on farms where it is usually found but I ended up getting rid of it anyway to see how it looked.
 * Self Nom Support both &mdash; Benjamint |Benjamint 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original only - Nice shot; I wish the tag wasn't there, but I can't get behind that much non-incidental 'shoppery. --TotoBaggins 13:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose photoshopped version gren グレン 06:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you support the original? --jjron 09:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it just means that I don't think such a large amount of photoshopping should be used for pictures in articles. I think I'd be neutral to oppose on the image... but, I hadn't really made up my mind. gren グレン 18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak support either (but not both). Nice composition and illustrates its subject well with no really obvious flaws. I have hesitated on pics like this before because I personally find animal shots more encyclopaedic if they include the full beast; additionally I would prefer the full face rather than profile. These concerns lead to the 'weak' support. I know some people here are really anti-photoshopping, but that's a neat job and I'd be quite happy for it to go through. --jjron 09:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't consider this before, but following that military brat discussion above, this seems to be lacking a bit in the detail in the caption and image description. These could be added to and improved. --jjron 09:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose both - unfortunately, the other goats "sitting on the snout" of the main one spoil the composition, even if they're far out of focus in full size. Pictures like this need a clearer background to get high enc points from me. --Janke | Talk 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose both for the reasons jjron gave. I have almost the exact same view of the image's pros and cons that he has, but to me they add up to oppose.  I want more of the animal for enc value. Great picture though. Zakolantern 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have improved the image descriptions. Hypothetically, what would people's opinions be if there were no goats in the BG, weren't there in the first place I mean. Benjamint
 * Oppose I'd like to see the whole animal in the picture. The head only won't even be suitable as the main image of the article. May have been suitable for the article Boer goat's head though :) -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 13:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While I made the comment earlier about preferring images of the full animal as well, please note that there are a number of 'head-shots' of animals that have gained FP status in the past, so your last comment is a bit unfair. See here. --jjron 08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't support any of those other head shots now, did I :) ? My point is head shots are alright if you're looking for great pictures and would be acceptable on Commons, but not including the body of the animal means the encyclopedic value of the picture takes a big hit. In some instances if the picture is that good exceptions could be made, but this one isn't that exceptional. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 13:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I tried to make clear, I'm not arguing with your views on preferring full body shots (especially as I tend to share that view anyway), I just felt your comment saying it's not even suitable as the main image, and joke about the Boer's head article were a bit unfair to the nominator given previous promotions of head only shots. --jjron 08:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, and apologies if I was misunderstood, but ideally featured pictures should be picturesque, encyclopedic, and of high quality. Like I said omitting the body takes away some of the encyclopedic value of the image, and it would have to be exceptional in another regard (i.e. historic etc) if I was to support it, which sadly it isn't. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 15:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 02:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)