Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Giraffe08 - melbourne zoo.jpg

Giraffe
I thought I might try another shot from the Melbourne Zoo. This one shows a detailed head view of a Rothschild Giraffe. Although taken in the zoo, there is not indication that the giraffe is in captivity. Alteranative: Image:Giraffe07 - melbourne zoo.jpg (shows horns behind ears)


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 01:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Some dust on two images, and how can the giraffes not in captivity when they are in a ZOO? Giraffe on their natural habitat (clichéd giraffe on African plane photo?) would be more enc. -- antilived T 01:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When I said "Although taken in the zoo, there is not indication that the giraffe is in captivity." I meant the photo gives the viewer no indication that the image was taken in a zoo. Not that I couldn't find any indication that the giraffe was captive! --Fir0002 10:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose. Needs a bit of work. Ilikefood 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. As above, plus the bokeh is pretty ugly. That said, the image is sharp and exposed and framed well (though the background is a bit distracting).--Andrew c 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugly bokeh!? This is beautiful L class bokeh here! Maybe you meant the background noise? --Fir0002 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, I meant the bokeh, especially in the top right section with all the little circles. But hey, I know ugliness is a subjective quality.--Andrew c 06:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Support per nom.  s d 3 1 4 1 5   final  exams!  02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as they stand - they're both good shots, although the first looks somehow a little fuzzy around the nose - was it chewing or something? I disagree with antilived, there's not a great deal to suggest to the casual viewer that these are zoo shots, although there is something incongruous about the giraffe/eucalyptus(?) combo in the alternative image :-). I'd like to see some serious noise reduction on the background before I'd support, though - the graininess isn't very pleasant on the eye and should be easily fixable. --YFB ¿  03:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edited version or as-yet non-existent similar edit to alternate. Thanks for the edit, Fir - hope the fires are keeping away. --YFB ¿  23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Uploaded an edit which I think addresses your concerns. --Fir0002 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The distracting background kills it for me, seriously lowering the enc. Also, I don't think the background looks like natural habitat... --Janke | Talk 11:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What particular part of the background do you find distracting? --Fir0002 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you ask, the blobs of sky behind the head. I'd prefer a more even BG, maybe only sky. (A natural habitat BG would be much better, like - but I do realize that we can't ask you to got to Kenya just for a shot... ;-)  Seriously, a sky BG would take care of that, right? --Janke | Talk 08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing, unrelated to Fir's photo: that image,, has a GFDL license, but it appears to be scanned from a printed source - see the moirees! A possible case of copyvio and false licensing? Anybody cares to investigate? --Janke | Talk 08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Asked the uploader about it -- antilived T 11:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I think it's a good picture. | A ndonic O Talk 23:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A good picture, no major problems. Sharkface217 19:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The quality and encyclopedic value of the picture are good; I just wish it was a bit higher resolution, so I could see more detail. Nautica Shad  e  s  14:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. No, I don't feel that the background is a distraction. Excellent focus.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   17:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

--YFB ¿  15:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)