Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kissing Prairie Dogs redux

Kissing prairie dogs redux
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2011 at 06:45:16 (UTC)
 * Reason:The image is of high resolution and quality. While it may not have the "Wow" factor like some panoramas, it does have the "Awwwww" factor which makes it more interesting (to me) than images of lone prairie dogs. The uses of the image are to show animal affection, which it does well. The image is currently featured at commons. Side note: If featured, it would be a good POTD for Valentine's Day. (An unedited version was previously nominated unsuccessfully; this version was unsuccessful at its nomination because the fifth support vote came in about 2 hours too late)
 * Articles in which this image appears:Prairie dog, Kiss, Black-tailed prairie dog
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
 * Creator:Mila Zinkova

Is the colour balance right in this image? They appear a lot more brown than in any other image of this species on Wikipedia. (e.g., File:Cynomys_ludovicianus_-Paignton_Zoo,_Devon,_England-8a.jpg)  Nik the  stoned  16:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The image you have linked to actually seems rather pale. The original picture (seemingly unedited) has them a similar shade of brown as the current one but with horrible levels. the lead image is of a similar colouring to the one you point to, while this one is midways. Lighting is a possibility. Perhaps diet and environment as well, as many of the images are of captive animals (I'm not a biologist, so I can't be sure if this can affect prairie dogs or not). Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose both It is a great image but the pre-saturation image pretty much shows that the colours in the nominated images have been over saturated. Additionally, the alt does indeed have a random floating tail happening! I'd support a version with a more neutral colour balance.  Nik the  stoned  08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Original, Strong Oppose Edit As last time for original, brown stuff has been cloned all over the left dog in the edit. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support either, although I prefer the edit (only because I find it less distracting overall). The photograph is well-composed, and moreover, could make a fun and interesting addition to numerous articles. EnkiduEnkita (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather think your proposed edits are severely oversaturated, and also your "edit 1" has one prairie dog turning transparent, and a tail that's looking for an owner. Not thinking much of your comparisons either - your "midways" image is rather doused in green. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * None of these are "mine"; the top picture was created by Mila, while the bottom was edited by Vassil and uploaded by Mila. Regarding the alt, I am not happy with it myself (I prefer the original), but I wanted to post it in case there were those who preferred it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support any as the last time. Looks like the edit was fixed. I agree if featured, it will make a great picture of the day for Valentine's Day. Looks like the edit was fixed. Broccolo (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Edit All the edit (the one that is being referred to as fixed) has indeed sorted out the terrible cloning for the outline, however it has introduced misalinged sections of the animal creating stitching errors. Compare the original with the edit at full res to clearly see but I noticed on looking at edit alone. JFitch   (talk)  02:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see this error. Could you please add a note to the stitching error you see? A note could be added in Commons. Broccolo (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose all of these abominations. Cropping, cloning, saturating... personally I think the original image, before it went through the Photoshop meat grinder, is a sweet little picture. JBarta (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit 2 added to deal with above worries. Edits by Mbz1. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit 2 includes the previously criticised "laserpointer problem" - LHS prairie dog, armpit area. May not be the most balanced crop. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like "laserpointer problem" was fixed. Broccolo (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose all - the first two for the issues mentioned earlier and the latter as, while the saturation levels are better, I find the crop and other prairie dog distracting.  Nik the  stoned  10:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support all and prefer original. -- George Chernilevsky  talk 20:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose all for reasons above (original & edit1 - oversaturated, edit1 - poorly cloned, edit2 - unbalanced crop). Samsara (FA • FP) 22:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support all prefer Alt 1. Pinetalk 06:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. I'm not wild about the mad photoshopping, this is clearly a zoo-shot, the animals look to be fatter and prettier than the typical prarie dogs and the EV of this "kissing" seems limited (the EV in kiss is lacking severely). It's a very sweet picture, and portrays the animals in a wonderful light, but I really don't think it's FP material. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support original Sure does have the "Awwwww" factor. Suraj  T  12:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)