Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leopard Tortoise

Leopard Tortoise

 * Reason:A good closeup view of the tortoise showing its face very clearly.
 * Proposed caption:The Leopard tortoise Geochelone pardalis, is a large and attractively marked tortoise. It is a large, grazing species of tortoise that favours semi-arid, thorny to grassland habitats. Leopard tortoises are the fourth largest species of tortoise.


 * Articles this image appears in:Tortoise, Leopard Tortoise
 * Creator:Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Both the above votes are these users first FP votes. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It looks like an average snapshot to me. Lipton_sale 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Average Shot, is very out of focus Tenio 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What is so average about them?
 * yeah, so? Newbies have suffrage here. -- ⁪ffroth 04:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is quite typical to mention when new users appear unexpectedly to vote, in case of potential sock puppetry for example. One of these users has only 15 edits on Wikipedia, the other just 25. It doesn't mean their votes don't count, just that they need to be treated with caution until they 'prove' themselves. --jjron 06:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I could just about understand that rationale if they were supporting but as it stands they were making an opposition, which if they were a sockpuppet perhaps wouldnt be in their best interests. I think that, despite them being new, they gave valid reasons for their objection and this should be noted rather than the legitimacy of their vote --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been known for users to create multiple socks in order to post multiple opposes (or its equivalent) as part of some type of 'revenge' against a user. It's not that hard to come up with such simple 'valid' reasons as were given here. --jjron (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment What is so exceptional about them? Lipton_sale 3:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What is so exceptional? Its a great shot! It shows the details of the tortoise's facial expression. It makes you feel as if you are there. I have not seen any other such picture of a tortoise on wikipedia.  --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1 of Alt 1 uploaded.
 * i'm not really sure where to put this in the article (i'm a noob) but I am not a "sock puppet" or whatever you call them just because this is my first vote doesn't mean that I can't have a say, and also I have made only a few edits to articles b/c I thought I could add to those articles.Tenio (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I really like Alternative 1, but in the same way as I might like a portrait of a family member or a pet that displayed some of their more endearing characteristics. Yet this does not automatically translate into FP status. Unschool 05:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. What features do you wish to see? I still have the chance of taking photos of this specie for a few days. --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would people stop posting comments under the Template:- line? Kthxbi. -- ⁪ffroth 06:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Original or Alt 1 (see below). OK, Alt 1 has better composition (though I'd rather it just a little further back), but you can see right in there to view how the head retracts into the shell, the mouth structure, etc; high encyclopaedic value. The exposure is better on the Original, the Alt looks a bit overexposed, probably too much flash. So I'd full support something like Alt 1 with the exposure/colouring of the Original. --jjron 07:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either with preference for alternative 2, encycloped and crisp, wikipedia sure gets its moneys worth from its editors --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative 1 for a better composition.--Mbz1 13:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lighting and due to the fact that you can't see the entire tortoise. My personal opinion is that as a general rule, an image of an animal that doesn't show substantially the entire animal ought not to be eligible to be featured unless the animal is very commonplace, or its general appearance is widely known, or the image is illustrating a specific unique and distinctive feature of that animal.  Spikebrennan 14:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This image is illustrating a specific unique and distinctive feature of the animal. It is showing the face, it is showing the scale like projections on the legs which are unique to this tortoise. These close up views also show clearly features which can not be seen with the entire view. Even the nostrils can be seen! What more could you ask? I have added two more pictures. Sorry for so many pictures but, after all the constructive criticism I took a few pictures which I hope will suit your demands. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support alt 3, oppose others. -- Spikebrennan (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you strike-through your original oppose (i.e., the vote, if not the comment)? --jjron (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose all sorry, their compositions and lighting are just too snap-shotty. They lack the wow-factor that is the first requirement for an FP to me. de Bivort 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support alt 1 -- Ryo 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Alt 1 is a nice, though not encyclopedic and has harsh flash.  A lot could be done with a bit of curves adjustment and a touch of saturation to lower that effect.   The new angles are more encyclopedic, but feels dead since is shot from above.  The perfect should would almost have to mean putting the thing on a rock or something elevated so you can both step away with the flash and yet remain at eye level or below it to create a sense of size.  Cheers, Ryo
 * Oppose all the flash lighting in the closeups is bad. The composition of the other is too sloppy, too eye-level. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 19:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * still oppose, unfortunately. Its a great picture, but I can't say the edits helped. The higher contrast and increased saturation don't help IMO. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support any, with preference to alt 1. H92110 (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 of Alt 1 per my previous comments, I think this addresses the lighting issue on the original of Alt 1. Perhaps this also addresses some other's concerns? --jjron (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this edit helps quite a bit. I made some further minor edits - reduced the accented hotspot, reduced grain in the off focus top corner, and was a bit more aggressive with sharpness on the lower face (where I think it can stand it without losing anything).  The licensing variables on my upload is imperfect, still learning the tools here...cheers, Ryo 14:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Note. It appears the integrity of this candidate may have been severely compromised by possible sock puppetry at the beginning of the process - see Suspected sock puppets/Sxenko. If not promoted, I propose that this candidate be closed without bias and renominated at the nominator's discretion. --jjron (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. This nomination is verging on the absurd! I have no idea which to offer an opinion on, which to ignore.. please, if you have any doubts, consider using picture peer review before nominating images here. --mikaultalk 09:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Offer opinion on all of them if you dont mind. Your reason for opposing is unfortunately not justified. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While it may be true that there are too many choices here, that is not a valid reason to oppose. To do so would seem like a violation of WP:Point. --jjron (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Violation? Well, the reason I'm opposing is because the original nom was clearly not FP material. The image closest, in my opinion, to FP quality (alt 1) doesn't appear in any articles. The second, third and fourth (!) alternatives successively weaken and demean the original nom to the point of absurdity. The only point to make here is that there's clearly no chance of any of the above being promoted, something a preliminary visit to WP:PPR would probably have avoided. Here's a point: I believe we should limit the candidate images in a nomination (not edits, which are generally beneficial) to one. I've suggested as much on the talk page, where I'd direct any further comments. --mikaultalk 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The alt 1 was provided together with the original. Both can not be used in the articles. Hence the one that is selected by you guys to be the best would then be used. You say that alt 1 is close to FP quality. Do you support it? Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, that's not how FPC nominations are handled at all. You can get an assessment as to which is the most encyclopedic image of the two at the peer review page. The one selected by those guys would then be nominated. The FPC page is for assessing images which appear in Wikipedia articles; the fact that Alt 1 doesn't is reason enough not to support it. Also, I'm not at all keen on the colour and tone rendering from the flash lighting, and find the context – the tortoise seems to be, erm, perched upon another – a little distracting and confusing, but maybe that's just me ;) --mikaultalk 22:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Tortoise perched on another? There is only one tortoise. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * QED.. --mikaultalk 12:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. This is my first vote on an F.P. nom, but I've checked this page daily for at least six months (hopefully I won't get marked down therefore). None of the photos here is of F.P. quality, so I'll direct my comments at Alt. 1, which is the best in my opinion. At full res it's artifacted, overly bright and lacking sharpness; the large patch of blue on the right hand side is also distracting from the subject. Conversely the edits are over-sharpened and over-saturated; I think these clearly show that editing out the image's shortcomings from the supplied jpeg would be nigh on impossible. bad_germ 19:10, 18th November (UTC)
 * Your vote seems reasoned enough (but what is it about this nom that's attracted three new voters?). However I'd like to point out that you say that Alt 1 is "...lacking sharpness..." while "...the edits are over-sharpened...". Interesting, because in doing my edit (Edit 1) I did absolutely no sharpening whatsoever (I remember this clearly, because usually I would do a bit of sharpening, but I was surprised by how sharp this was). --jjron (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe my eyes are deceiving then, and the increased saturation brought it out. The quality of the image in the most important area (eye and mouth) is just not there when viewed in full resolution. I for one came out of the woodwork because the uploader has had a number of self-noms (here and here), and would perhaps be better served by the peer review. Whilst enthusiasm is no doubt encouraged, when nominating your own pictures ruthless objectivity must also be used to avoid disappointment. bad_germ 11:41, 19th November (UTC)

Oppose All I'm not really much of a fan of any of the close ups - the composition and lighting is lacking in my opinion. Alt 1 is probably the strongest of the close-ups but it should have been taken at a wider angle. And when I say a wider angle I'm not just saying I would prefer more of the carapace showing (which I would) but also the wider angle would provide a more interesting perspective. I also dislike the dirt and stuff around his mouth. Alt 3 has softer (nicer) lighting and a full body composition (which in my opinion is better) but looks a bit messy - with the grass and stuff obscuring parts of the body and the poor background with all the pink flowers and stuff. A good photo, but not quite FP standard IMO --Fir0002 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)