Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Singapore Zoo Tigers.jpg

White Tigers


Behold the white King. A WOW quality photo of an extremely rare animal (around 100 +/- worldwide) in a semi-natural environment. Showing the animal in great detail. With such rarity and quality, I'm proud to nominate it on FPC. Thanks in advance for your votes. It appears in Singapore Zoo and of course White tiger. Author: Nachoman-au.


 * Nominate and support. - Arad 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As Nominator, I don't like the edit much. It just takes the body of the tigers off and destroys a lot of detail.Arad 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, although I'm a bit worried that some careless viewers of this photo may be eaten... --KFP 00:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I love your comment. yeah better watch out! Arad 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Very impressive shot of the tigers. I love the way they're framed against the background. bob rulz 02:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Wow!, Magnificent. Marmoulak 03:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more FPs of rare animals, but this one just doesn't do it for me. My opinion is similar to that of the Cheetah nomination, about the subject not being fully shown. I'd prefer to see either the whole animal or a detail on the face. This image shows the face, but it's also blurry at full resolution, which is the reason for my weak oppose. Downsizing might correct the problem. I also don't like the framing too much, with the subjects on the right. -- Tewy  03:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on. Blury? this shot is magnificent. But thanks for the vote anyway. Arad 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless my monitor is way off, they look blurry, especially the lower one. If you look around the edges of the tigers, you should see what I mean. I just don't think this is quite good enough for FP. -- Tewy  03:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's because of the focus. I actually like it. IMHO. Arad 03:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * Oppose. The focus on the eyes and face is good, but there's not much DoF and the outlines of the bodies and contrasting stripes are definitely a little blurred. I also prefer to see the entire animal or a close-up of the face; the right edge just appears to end so abruptly. The background has little contrast, and the large leaf on the far left center draws my eye away from the subjects. --S0uj1r0 04:00, 13 September 2006
 * Support. Although this picture is pretty good as of right now, I would like to see what a good edit could add to it. Edit 2 looks good. Nauticashades 11:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Absolutely gorgeous creatures (can you tell I'm a "cat person"), but alas, the image quality is too low for my support. It's poorly composed, a portrait of just one of them would work much better, even a picture of both in a different pose could look better. My eyes just sorta' drift off of this, the composition doesn't hold them. The cropping in the original and the edit are cut too close to the standing one's head for my liking. I know they haven't, but it almost feels like they've been pasted into the edit from seperate photos or something, oddly enough. The colours seem to be off slightly, the whites are slightly blue to me, as though it was taken on a cloudy day (which would also explain the annoyingly "flat" lighting). -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  12:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * With all respect, your comment doesn't make sens. This image has non of the technical problems you mentioned. The position of the tigers is perfect and the beauty of the picture is partly subjective. The colors are not blue at all. Maybe your monitor needs a little fix. Arad 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The image is obviously blurry: at full size fur detail and texture should be descernable, which it isn't (yes, my monitor works fine for sharpness, and no, my glasses aren't out of date). The composition fails criteria 7 of WP:WIAFP for me: the composition is very unpleasing, it's too busy and nothing is positioned well in the frame. If there was just one tiger it would work fine, but they "compete" with each-other for interest, which makes the image not very eye-catching. You may be right about the colours, I wasn't sure about that. The lighting also detracts from the "pleasing to the eye" criteria: it appears to be highly difused, which shows no texture. Tigers have loads of texture, but they might as well be cardboard cut-outs for all the texture that's shown in this photo. If you don't see blurriness, then try comparing to this featured picture. In my example almost all of the feathers are distinct and sharp, you can pick out an individual feather from the plumage. The hairs in this nom are totally indistinguishable from their neighbours, aka blurriness (if you don't see it, than perhaps your monitor needs a little fix). -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  23:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I find this image pleasing to my eye. As I said criteria number 7 is subjective. Of course you know it by heart but just to remember you: The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer or more significant its content, the less aesthetically-pleasing it may be. And again, i have no problem seeing every single hair on the tigers body. Exept the one who's sitting because half of he's body was not meant to be in focus. Arad 23:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But this isn't a rare image or showing significant content. These tigers live at the Singapore Zoo. It wouldn't be hard to get a Singaporean Wikipedian to go take another picture. It's not like someone went to Siberia and shot the image in the wild or something.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said Tewy. Arad, you and I could probably argue forever about this image and still not agree, so I won't continue to fight with you (I find it stressful, and as I said, it's probably futile anyway). I will still oppose, and if my arguement is valid (which I obviously believe it is) the Admin closing the nom will count my vote. If not, than my vote will be disregarded. I feel that leaving it up to the closer is the best use of my time. (though it is perhaps worth pointing out that several other people opposing have noticed the quality and composition issues that I have opposed for) -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  23:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't take it like that. I really appreciate your comments. And we're not fighting. I liked the conversation we had and I wish the best for you. Your oppose is for sure valid, you gave your opinion. Arad 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I guess I misinterpreted your comments and overreacted. I meant no rudeness, and I apologize if I came off as rude. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comment wasn't rude at all. it was polite enough and thanks again. Arad 01:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Like others have said, the framing bothers me. It's unbalanced -- there's too much tiger on the right and too much empty space on the left. The right-most tiger, we can only see half its body. The composition of the crop is better because it puts both heads near hot spots, but now it's too tight. Like Pharaoh Hound says, it's a little blurry too. There is not one portion of the image that's crystal clear.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original. Focus not perfect, framing a bit tight, but still good. --Bernard 02:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support Original, yes the focus is a little soft, but it is a wonderful picture. I don't like the way edit 1 is cropped or edit 2 has had artificial sharpening. HighInBC 14:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The rareness of the subject doesn't contribute to the rareness of the photo as they're in a zoo and probably photographed hundreds of times every day. This particular photograph suffers from blur and a poor composition, cropping just draws attention to the blur. --Yummifruitbat 01:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Because of extensive care, these tigers are usually shown in particular days sand are usually rented. The quality of this photo also adds to it's rarity. Anyone who has a white tiger in his city's zoo is welcome to have a try and we'll see the result, right? Have you ever seen a white tiger in your city zoo? 66.36.144.252 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Arad, will you please stop making "let's see you do better then" comments? Featured Pictures are not 'the best photo of x subject that Wikipedia has at the moment', they're supposed to be the best images on Wikipedia, full stop. As several others have commented above, the quality of this photo is not especially good, so that's certainly not adding to its 'rarity'. I don't know what you mean about the tigers often being rented but the fact that they're on display in a (major) zoo nullifies any argument about rarity of photographs - whether my local zoo has a white tiger is utterly, totally irrelevant to this discussion. --Yummifruitbat 01:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * oops. Sorry! Didn't mean that. Yes maybe a bit blurry but i find a good quality. (maybe I'm out of date in technology). And well, If a Panada comes to my city zoo then is rented from China. Same for white tigers. (In the article it said that for desplay around the world, they are brought for only few days). I didn't said it's 'the best photo of x subject that Wikipedia has at the moment'. It is the best photo of white tigers I've seen on Internet. And i prefer to close the discussion here and thank you for the comment. And let's have a bit of fun in discussions, can we? And your not at any position to command me to what should I say. You can give your opinion.Arad 11:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus you take this whole thing too serious dude. you can take a break if your wikistress is high.
 * Thanks for your concern, Arad, but my wikistress isn't high at all. I take the FP process reasonably seriously though, because the outcome of these discussions dictates what ends up on the front page labelled 'the best Wikipedia has to offer'. I don't think it's helpful to the project if the nomination process is reduced to 'a bit of fun'; there are plenty of forums on the web for chatting and joking about photos we like but that's not what FPC is for. Of course I can't command you to say or not say anything, and I wasn't trying to, but I must admit that I find your tendency to dismiss or combatively dispute others' valid objections and make sarcastic comments rather irritating, so I politely request that you try not to do so. If this discussion has to continue any further it should move to the talk page. --Yummifruitbat 12:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * your second comment is reasonable enough. Thank you. Arad 12:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * oppose I don't think anything that is capable of eating a person should be supported! NegativeNed 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User only has votes on his or her user page, talk page, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. See Special:Contributions/NegativeNed. -- Tewy  23:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope Yummifruitbat won't get angry at me this time, but this user's oppose doesn't make sens. I'm not sure if his sarcastic, if he is, he seriously needs to work on it, but this is not a reason to oppose. Anyone has an idea if this person is serious or not? Arad 22:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like this user is a little, how you say it? I can't understand anything from his vote and he has a bad credit. Arad 03:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose - Pictures of tigers should be amazing to become featured. I do not believe that this is the best picture of White Tigers that exists. --Ineffable3000 04:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great image! Some P.   E  rson  22:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(+7.5/-5.5, ignoring vote/comment by NegativeNed) -- Moondigger 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)