Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wallowing Behavior of American Bisons

Wallowing Behavior of American Bisons

 * Reason:An interesting behavior shot. Adds value to the section of the article
 * Articles this image appears in:American Bison; Bison
 * Creator:Mbz1


 * Comment As I said in the introduction it is a behavior shot, which means that this shot was not ment to show sharp, still bison. This image that was taken in the wild does show what it intended to show - wallowing behavior (IMO).--Mbz1 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Weak support Quality is low and it seems to have high saturation in the grassy areas, which tends to make it more distracting with its grainy appearance. You mentioned that it is not ment to be sharp. To me, it actually seems oversharped, but I guess it is because of the saturation. Also, when zoomed close, it doesn't have the EV for a FP especially the grass.  Zoo Fari  23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The image was not sharpend in PS at all. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but it did seem like it. But I definitly prefer the newer edit. It makes a big difference when its saturation isn't strong.  Zoo Fari  01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You prefer it big enough to support? :=)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. However, I still think it needs a little more EV, so I will weak support ;)  Zoo Fari  04:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The image is used in two articles. I observed this behavior very often, but it is really hard to photograph. IMO the image dos have EV. IMO we do need behavior shots too.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, reluctantly, because I understand the difficulties of photographing animal behaviour. But it is possible to take photos of this behaviour that are better composed and make it much clearer what is going on. This image while not as technically good, would have more EV (since it is much clearer what the animal is and what it is doing) and is better composed. I take the point that the image still has EV as is, perhaps it would be better as a valued image? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  21:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, though I do agree that this image shouldn't be featured (though I am abstaining). Definitely a VP candidate. However, not my point; in that image you linked to the individual "wallowing" is cut off. Ceran  →// forge 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is what I do not like, when to oppose an image a low resolution, not a free license image is used to compare. I bet we could find better images for 80% of our FP somewhere on the NET, but sorry with no free license. Besides I believe my image is better because it shows the dust.Thank you for your vote.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The image I linked to was to help explain why I opposed, not to say "this is better" (it clearly isn't). As for showing dust...yes, dust is good, but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I very much appreciate the effort, but it's extremely difficult to even see what's going on. I agree that the example image that Sabine's Sunbird linked to would pass if it were up to quality. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 06:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose not clear enough for me.        Adam (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 02:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)