Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Common foxes in the snow.jpg

Common foxes in the snow

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2010 at 14:59:06 (UTC)

Original -

Reason: Interesting execution
Articles in which this image appears: Friedrich Wilhelm Kuhnert, Animal painter
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Created by Friedrich Wilhelm Kuhnert, restorated by Citron.

Support as nominator --Citron (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The image isn't on any wikipedia pages as of this comment. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm glad to see that it's on a page. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Not used in any articles. Also, the foxes (especially the front one) don't look totally realistic/natural. I can't pinpoint exactly what's wrong (something with its neck/shoulders?)q, but it makes more sense to use a photo... Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hum... What do you mean? You should especially look at this picture as a work of art : composition, execution, colors... This painting does not pretend to surpass a photo.

If we should look as it as a work of art, then it doesn't have a lot of EV for Red fox when photos will do a better job of illustrating it. If the EV is in the art, then it should be in an article that relates to it as art... IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my oppose since it now looks like it has some EV. I'm not sure it's a great enough reproduction/image to be FP - I'll leave that to others to decide. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Quality illustration but low EV in the article. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done If that's all what is needed.--Citron (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Better EV now that it illustrates the author. Could do with some minor touching up on what looks like dust spots though? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, EV now clear, quality obvious. The colours look right, but do we know the dimensions of the original? I'm just wondering if there has been any cropping. Less important for an illustration than a work of fine art, but still fairly important. (Also, if we're promoting this as art, which I think we should, it belongs in a different FP category.) J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support not that outstanding as an art, but I agree with JM about the category. Nergaal (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I agree, but we're not here to judge- it remains a strong example of his work. J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4.5 of 5 required supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]