Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Socks cat 1.JPG

Socks the Cat
Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2013  at 19:58:58 (UTC)


 * Reason:This is my first FP nomination, so if I've gotten any of this horribly wrong, please let me know. The image is slightly under the recommended resolution, but I believe it fulfills all the other requirements aptly.  The subject is sharply presented with a relevant background image of the White House Briefing Room, there are no other photos of Socks that match the unique nature and quality of this photo, it is in the public domain, has a good description, is verifiably represented in the article, and has not been inappropriately manipulated.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Socks (cat), List of cats
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
 * Creator:Staxringold


 * Support as nominator -- I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Resolution isn't up to standards. EV seems decent. Rather cute. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Resolution is well below the minimum standards. Sorry. .My oppose was based on the 598X447 image. I didn't check that a higher res pic was uploaded. I think the current resolution can be excepted from the min. resolution criteria IMO. So I'll change my vote to Support.Nikhil (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposing on the basis of resolution alone doesn't really seem fair given the other qualities. The details in the photo are clear enough given its subject.  What is the purpose of a resolution that most monitors probably can't even view full-screen?  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 20:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a terrible argument, I'm afraid. Print needs a higher resolution than monitors, and Socks himself is only part of the image.
 * Nonetheless, Support. Because I don't think there's likely to be significantly more detail in the original, given film grain and the standard camera quality of the time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 00:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I too can look past the specific image-size requirements for an image like this. I actually think it is a wonderful capture, happily supporting this. JFitch   (talk)  23:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - As the subject is deceased, there is no chance of getting a higher quality image. It appears consensus is in favour of allowing the lower resolution in this instance, which is alright with me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It's very unique and interesting. The image quality is a minor issue to me here. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

-- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)