Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indian Elephant

Indian Elephant

 * Articles in which this image appears:Indian Elephant, Asian Elephant and Chitwan National Park (gallery)
 * Creator:Benjamint 11:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator --Benjamint 11:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment File needs a license. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done Benjamint 23:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is just sad how small this image is. --Dschwen 14:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's a separate discussion about the FP criteria. This image is not a panorama and it meets the minimum size. It is a nice composition and appears to be useful, however I'll be waiting a bit to determine that, since the image has been added to all three articles only few hours before this nomination. --Elekhh (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * not a panorama, who cares, this is just a strawman argument. Every camera on the planet should have at least five times the resolution. And excellence is not just meeting minimum requirements. --Dschwen 13:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean minimum requirements for FP (i.e. excellence) are not sufficient for FP? I don't understand... --Elekhh (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between necessary and sufficient, and let me just point to the larger sizes are generally preferred part. --Dschwen 13:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And that difference is at everybody's discretion... Neverthless, I find it better than this megafauna FP. --Elekhh (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly the problem. Your standards are stuck in 2005. Welcome to the next decade my friend. --Dschwen 15:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I double-disagree. I have no such thing as 2005 standards... a good image is a good image, be it even early 20th century. Second, the current minimum size standard of 1000px is enough for a 300dpi print of a Wiki article on an A4, which, despite being an old format is very likely to be retained throughout the 21st century. But again, this is a separate discussion which should take place in relation to FPC criteria. --Elekhh (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Size concerns should be overriden by locational systemic bias ones. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Without expressing an opinion on the image itself, I would be inclined to strongly disagree with that. We should judge images on their own merits, and, if nothing good enough is around to illustrate a certain topic, we should wait. There's no time limit, and letting through so-so images isn't really going to help anything. There's certainly no paralell in any of the other FXC systems. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In my view we should consider the rarity or reproducibility of an image; a picture taken in New York or London, cities that are full of English speaking Wikipedians, can be held to a higher standard than one taken in Nepal. It is this reasoning that also allows us to promote historical images that are in black and white.  This doesn't mean, however, we should promote lousy images just because they are rare: it is a judgment call.  In this case I think the image is good enough to promote.Fletcher (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and my comment above. Fletcher (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an everyday scene for large parts of Asia, and doesn't wow me as having a particularly exciting composition. Quality-wise, I'd note that Fir contributed a much better Asian elephant - admittedly, a zoo animal, but we have heaploads of images with poorer technical quality but better composition and more visually rich inclusion of local culture. To me, this is a stale holiday snapshot that just happened to be taken with an above-average set of kit. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't find the photo you indicate better at all. At identical resolution, the elephant looks sleepy/bored, background/habitat unnatural, sky overexposured, and subspecies is not stated. I think this image should be looked at in terms of its EV for Indian Elephant. --Elekhh (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry that you have to differ, but the resolution on subject is unquestionably higher and as a corollary, overall sharpness is also higher - just to give an example: in the image nominated here, the hair on the forehead turns into a blur, on Fir's version (and no, I wouldn't nominate it), I can nearly count individual hairs. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per above. This is nothing amazing. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support A very good picture (composition, pose, focus, etc.) with significant EV, showing an Indian Elephant in natural habitat (within a national park). The only argument against so far was that is not high enough resolution (to show skin texture), however it meets the FP criteria, and is better than other FPs IMO. It is generally actepted to have several FPs in an article, so a second FP demonstrating skin texture would be still possible. --Elekhh (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I beg to differ. A spectacular image in my opinion, and the focus is fantastic. TheStig  t · c  12:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is downsampled and sharpened so much you cannot tell anything about the focus. --Dschwen 14:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too small, not enough detail, not much wow, insufficient EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din \talk 07:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)