Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mexican Wolf

ɗ===Mexican Wolf===



After spending much time reading the previous and existing FPC candidates, and on Fir0002's advice, I've decided to have another go at a nomination.

This is a photograph of a a critically endangered Mexican Grey Wolf. It's very subject focused, sharp throughout the entire image, and neither over, or under-exposed. Caption updated on July 20.


 * Self-Nominate and Support. -Marumari 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support i see no probs Ch ild zy ( Talk 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Oh, man... I was thinking of nominating your Zebra heliconian shot; I like it a lot and think it's a shoe-in for FP.  But this one I'm not a big fan of.  It's a typical zoo shot.  Competently photographed, but the subject is clearly captive, even without the caption to say so. -- moondigger 15:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a typical zoo shot, which is why I didn't nominate this one first. That said, there's less than 15 Mexican Grey Wolves (MGW) in the wild, so it is very hard to get a picture of a non-captive MGW. P.S.: Go for it, on the Zebra Heliconian.  :) --Marumari 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand it would be nearly impossible to get a shot of one in the wild, especially in Minnesota. :) I only wish it looked less like a zoo shot.  I'll nominate the Zebra heliconian picture sometime soon. -- moondigger 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral . Support. I like the image a lot despite the drawback of it being obviously in captivity. Have you uploaded it at 1000px wide to make it scrape through the minimum resolution guidelines? ;) They may be the minimum but that doesn't mean automatic qualification, particularly if the author has been stingy in providing detail! ;) I'd like to see a higher resolution version of this and would probably support it. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, mostly because Wikipedia seems to be the land of Unexplained Errors, and it was much quicker to upload a bunch of images that way. Plus, my screen is only 1280 pixels wide -- without the photoshop floaty things visible.  Okay, a version 2.5x larger is now up there.  Personally, I think the lower resolution image is easier to evaluate. --Marumari 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, its only 2.5x larger in terms of pixels, not width, but thanks. As has been discussed previously on FPC, the highest possible resolution is always prefered, up to the point where additional resolution provides no additional detail (ie usually, images straight out of a digital camera can be safely downsampled slightly as well as recompressed to make the image dialup-friendly without sacrificing detail or quality. I can see in this image that you are starting to reach the limit of the detail at 1500x1000 so I'm happy to support it. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why on earth do we care about making images dialup-friendly? The software takes care of downsizing the image to whatever size you specify in the article, and even if they click on the thumbnail, they'll get another downsized version at the preference size they've chosen. Only if they click on *that* image do they get the full thing. A non-issue. Stevage 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I find it a total pain in the ass to evaluate an image that's eight times larger than my screen, and takes forever to download and manipulate in Photoshop. --Marumari 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, nice, clean, encyclopaedic image. Could be a little sharper, but really, this is the minimum standard that most FPC's should be aiming for. Stevage 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose the other picture of the Mexican wolf (in the article) is better. I might support if this image was on captivity (animal) instead. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the image to captivity (animal) as well as updated the caption and description to explain why it looks like a zoo image. Now you can have your cake, and eat the frosting too! --Marumari 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. A good, encyclopedic photo. I don't have problems with "zoo-ness" so long as it isn't distracting. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. A+ composition and well done technically. The fact that it's a "zoo shot" actually ADDS to the value of the image, as it is a commentary on the endangered status of the species. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that it's obviously a zoo shot says nothing about the Mexican Wolf's endangered status. There's no reason to assume that animals photographed in zoos are endangered; the vast majority of zoo animals are not. -- moondigger 21:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what the caption's for! Weeeeee!  --Marumari 22:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhh.. right. :^) I just meant that such information isn't inherent in the image itself.  It's the caption that tells us the species is endangered, not the fact that the image is a zoo shot.-- moondigger 22:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The caption and the article explain why the animal is really only seen in zoos, the image simply captures that fact quite well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Encyclopedic photo. Good background (it means that no background). Andrew 18 @  10:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an excellent photograph. It's not as flashy and exciting as other photos, but it clearly belongs on an encyclopedia. ♠ SG →Talk 17:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice. — Aiden 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent pic. --Billpg 10:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - good focus, decent resolution ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Why do these endangered species (or subspecies in this case) always look so doleful? It's like they know. Although, as per Samsara, I actually also prefer the other pic in the Mexican Wolf article. This pic is informative in a different way though. --jjron 08:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This photo indeed illustrates the article more.

Raven4x4x 09:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)