Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mandrill

Mandrill

 * Reason:Meets the critera and adds significant value to all of the articles in which it appears
 * Articles this image appears in:Mandrill Mandrillus Cercopithecinae Papionini
 * Creator:Malene Thyssen


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Ch ild zy (Talk 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Love the lighting and subject, but it's just too over sharpened for my liking --Fir0002 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC) MER-C 05:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Striking photogenic image of the colorful Mandrill in seemingly contemplation, It would make for a nice featured picture. ▪◦▪ ≡ЅiREX≡Talk 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, looks to be sharp enough. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sharp, but too dark on the right. Reywas92 TalkHow's my editing? 18:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment though the right is slightly shadowed, what does the picture lose because of this? --Ch ild zy (Talk 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic value, I'd assume. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 15:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Though the shading is a bit different, I think there is enough there to identify the species based on the photo. In addition, it's a great shot, with wonderful aesthetics. --Cody.Pope 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Sharp enough -- St.daniel Talk 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose A great picture, very artistic, but I feel it is a poor depiction of the subject and not very encyclopedic. 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The former of your oppositions may be true, but certainly not the latter. I suppose it's questionable what qualifies as "encyclopedic". -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more "encyclopedic" if it were a full-body shot in better lighting, to better help the reader grasp the animal's size and shape. Jellocube27 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support - weak, only due to the effects of downsampling or oversharpening artefacts in the fur - a great image otherwise. Artistic and encyclopedic are NOT mutually exclusive! --Janke | Talk 07:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support Nice picture --Ba'Gamnan | Talk 12:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment To mediate for the concerns of over-sharpening, we might ask the up-loader to resize the original using bicubic smoother, or another setting. I mean only resize it to it's present size, not smaller which is why we'd need the original to do it. --Cody.Pope 11:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting oppose.svg|15px]] Oppose – It's a lovely composition, but the right crop is too tight. C e n t <font color ="#990000">y  14:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to excessive oversharpening. I would support a version that's properly post-processed. -- Moondigger 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose whoa that's a lot of sharpening. No thanks. --YFB ¿  16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose as per comments above and issues that image isn't sharp enough. 'Tis sad, it is a fascinating image.... Booksworm Talk to me! 05:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)