Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tree Lion

Tree Climbing Lioness

 * Reason:Self-nom. A high-quality image of a hard to spot tree climbing lion in its native habitat.  The sky is blown, however given the time of day and the technically difficulty of photographing in mixed light conditions (shadows from the tree etc.), I feel this doesn't distract from the FP attributes of the image.  Also, there is a lot of discussion right now about original content on the talk page, so I decided to add some more original content.  I've just now added the image to wiki, and so the articles it appears in may be updated, I'll make a note if this happens.
 * Proposed caption:A female lioness in Ishasha Southern sector of Queen Elizabeth National Park (Southwestern Uganda). Ishasha lions are famed for tree climbing, a trait only shared with lions in the Lake Manyara region. They often spend the hottest parts of the day in the large fig trees found throughout the area. It is still unclear why so few lions exhibit this behavior.
 * Articles this image appears in:Lion, Queen Elizabeth National Park
 * Creator:Cody Pope


 * Support, self nom Cody.Pope 16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and high quality. Really a beautiful animal which shows it's full physical form. →  j acĸrм  ( talk  |   sign  ) 18:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Puddyglum 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While this may be a great shot given the conditions it was taken in, that much blown sky is tough to overlook.  The compositions and main subject don't stand out enough to make up for the serious flaw.--ragesoss 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * support--Mbz1 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Support though its obvious there are blown highlights i do not believe that thaey in anyway detract from the image --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  23:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is certainly a very nice image, but I am concerned about its encyclopedic value and about its technical quality. What are the sources for the fact that "Ishasha lions are famed for tree climbing?"  If this unusual lion behavior is what makes this image encyclopedic, where is that information in the text of this encyclopedia?  This image is currently used as a second image in the lion taxobox, and I'm not convinced that it is useful to have two images in a taxobox.  It is also used in the park stub, which has three excellent pictures (and they should all be kept in the article!) but almost no text.  The technical issue I'm most concerned about is the appearance of the lower, unfocused branches of the tree.  What caused that strange mottled effect?  Note: the two current lion FPs are Image:Male_Lion_and_Cub_Chitwa_South_Africa_Luca_Galuzzi_2004.JPG and Image:Lion_waiting_in_Nambia.jpg.  Enuja  (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that the mottled effect is just a result of Bokeh.  The image was shot at f3.2 with a Nikkor (80-200, f2.8) telephoto at 200mm.  There is no way to modify how the Bokeh effect presents itself with this lens.  In any case, the mottling is not a result of any post-processing, and is in the RAW image.  Also, as I've said, I wasn't sure where to place the image on Wikipedia, so your concerns about it's placement in the  taxobox may be valid.  However, given the sexual dimorphism of lions, it may be warranted (I think this is one of the reasons two images can go in a taxobox in the first place, and is quite common in field guides/standard encyclopedias, etc.).  Finally, I've found some preliminary sources about tree-climbing, but am still looking for an academic source (most of what I've found is from travel websites; the Uganda Wildlife Authority was the original source of my comments, but I know there is at least one field researcher studying these prides, so I'm looking for an academic article as a better source).  --Cody.Pope 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - no one is looking at the sky in this picture anyways. I honestly would not even have noticed that it was white until you pointed it out.  Very nice shot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrawford620 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to blown sky. This is not a unique enough image to overlook such a flaw. --Dhartung | Talk 09:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added Option 2, with no sky.  There is simply no data in Option 1 to be recovered.  Depending on if either is promoted, I'll move the proper one into the pages listed above.  I'm personally fonder of the composition of Option 1, however. --Cody.Pope 10:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Either - Great pictures of a very unusual behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EllenS (talk • contribs) 12:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support either - Technical quality is adequate for an unusual picture. I didn't know any lions climbed trees, so this makes me want to read about it.  --Sean 15:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either per above. CillaИ X&diams;C [dic]  16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The image page points out that the behavior depicted in this image (tree-climbing) is rare, and is apparently only practiced by a few groups of female lions (including one of the groups at the park where the image was taken).  This leads me to question the picture's encyclopedic-ness for Lion, although it's perhaps appropriate for the article about the park.  Spikebrennan 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original per above. Good, encyclopedic shot. -- Chris.B 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either Searching for tree lion on google images demonstrates that this is not an area in which many high-quality pictures appear. There are problems here, but none that seem to overcome the substantial encyclopedic value. Detail is well documented. Composition is excellent. -Harmil 17:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose [Fake article] All juvenile lions can and will climb trees, until they become too heavy to climb trees   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.78.56.10 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)