Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jaguar at Edinburgh Zoo

Jaguar at Edinburgh Zoo

 * Reason:High quality encyclopaedic and attractive image, showing fine detail of the facial features of the Jaguar.
 * Proposed caption:The jaguar (Panthera onca), shown here at Edinburgh Zoo is a New World mammal of the Felidae family and one of four "big cats" in the Panthera genus, along with the tiger, lion, and leopard of the Old World. The jaguar is the third-largest feline after the tiger and the lion, and on average the largest and most powerful feline in the Western Hemisphere. The jaguar's present range extends from Mexico (with occasional sightings in the southwestern United States) across much of Central America and south to Paraguay and northern Argentina.
 * Articles this image appears in:Jaguar, Edinburgh Zoo
 * Creator:Pascal Blachier


 * Support as nominator — Jack · talk · 02:36, Thursday, 6 December 2007 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Adam Cuerden talk 03:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support if anyone submits a hi-res photo of an animal and i can see the individual hairs, im all for it 76.171.1.235 (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * IPs don't have suffrage. Please log in. MER-C 06:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Where can I find that policy? (Note: I'm not this anonymous IP, just intrigued to see such a curt shut-down of any good faith editor, anonymous or otherwise). --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the top of this page: "Note however that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets." --jjron (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the top of this page: "Note however that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets." --jjron (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Outstanding animal portrait. Fg2 (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per 76.171.1.235. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --Mad Tinman T C 14:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Superb. -- Menti  fisto  15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - pussy and a head in one image.--Svetovid (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * weak support - lacks full body view, but makes up for it partially with detail. de Bivort 18:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Caption does not refer to facial features; unless there are notable facial features (and appropriate articles), a whole animal view is preferred. C.f. Image:Pseudalopex culpaeus.jpg which was in vibrissae when promoted. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I respect that you personally would prefer full-body shots, but I venture that this is definitely not a consensus opinion of FPC. Please take a look at the partial-body shots of otters, seals, tigers, giraffes, monkeys, and cows that are not in articles about their facial features. As the head is often (if not always) the most interesting part of the animal, I think most voters would agree that the head alone is perfectly encyclopedic and good enough to promote. IMPO, the difference b/t this nom and your example is that the crop in the latter weakened the original enc. claim, whereas the whole head is visible in this nom and the crop doesn't hurt the enc. value which, incidentally, the picture has, regardless of whether or not the caption says so --Malachirality (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the example I cited is an FP. However, it was made an FP for inclusion in vibrissae, where it is illustrative of the subject. There is nothing wrong with having a close-up shot as supplementary material in an article; however, they are unsuitable as an FP. This has been repeatedly stated by others on FPCs for various birds and reptiles; we seem to have a bias when it comes to mammals - hardly a healthy situation! Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I respect your opinion, and in fact often agree with this stance, I'm not sure it's so much a mammalian bias as a matter of practicality. A bird 10 or 20cm long can be adequately captured in good detail in a full body shot, but a full body photo of say a 5m tall giraffe will obviously have far less detail of the whole animal. Thus a head shot of these larger animals are informative in a way that they are far less likely to be with small animals, because they provide detail you can't get in the full body shots. For example I'd be somewhat dubious about a head shot of a gecko, but perfectly happy with one of a crocodile - it's nothing to do with whether it's a mammal, it's how much detail you can capture in a single photo. --jjron (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope the following may help clarify what I'm looking for: User:Samsara/Full body shots please Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At present, there are only two things which define an image's suitability for FP: Featured Picture Criteria and individual opinion. Of these, only FP criteria definitively state what is and isn't "preferred", and there currently is no criterion relating to the enc value of head shots. I'm very tempted to agree with you on the whole head shot issue, within certain parameters, but I'd much rather any firm guidelines evolved from discussion on the FPC talk page than disruption of the FPC process by WP:POINT making. Sorry to be so blunt.. really, my only problem with this is that newcomers might be led to believe that you're referring to consensus-based criteria, when this isn't the case at all. --mikaultalk 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support per above. --Malachirality (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice picture, we could do with a few more of these.  Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose The quality is not very high; not enough to be featured. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 21:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * add: It's blurred and the focus is not accurate; the focus is to much at the background. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 13:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no. What parts exactly are blurred? The focus is quite definitely on the jaguar, not on the background. --Malachirality (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, see here. Thanks. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Chris.B •  talk  16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)