Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eichhörnchen Düsseldorf Hofgarten edit

Red squirrel

Original - A red young squirrel looking into the camera.

Reason: This is beautiful picture by a red squirrel. It's where I just have to say "Wow!" it's an amazing picture at a close hold.
Articles this image appears in: Red Squirrel, and Cumbria Way
Creator: Original image by: Ray eye, crop by Fabien1309.

Support as nominator --Kanonkas : Talk 13:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute! Looks sharp and high-quality. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support DOF looks a little shallow to get the tail and back side, but the subject is likely not an enthusiastic model so it's a great capture. Fletcher (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Quality is not great. I don't quite see the enc value of this image. Little of the subject is in focus and the setting doesn't thrill me either. --Dschwen 14:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Shallow depth-of-field, and the poor quality (not sure if it's due to noise or compression) is visible even at 1000px, the bare mininum. NauticaShad es 01:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per NauticaShades. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely its quality must be good enough to be an FP and #3 in the POTY? I'm not saying its has much EV, but I think that you are focusing too much on the quality of this image. We already know ti has good quality, now what about EV? --Lord ₪Sunday 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we do not know that it has good quality. POTY is not about quality, POTY attracts lots of users who have little photographic experience and judge based on wow and cuteness. --Dschwen 17:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good quality and composition.--Avala (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The support-template is a commons thing. Please note that this is en.wp. Just use the word support in bold. --Dschwen 22:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right I fixed it. I was commenting on commons and forgot to change here.--Avala (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I just stumbled upon the picture when I was reading about the red squirrel and would have nominated it myself for the reasons above if it hadn't already been nominated. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - grainy and out of focus. Poor photo quality by FPC standards. de Bivort 02:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Debivort. Also, the surroundings are less than ideal for nature or animal shots. Latics (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though I can't bring myself support (quality is not so great), the comments about the surroundings are puzzling to me. Many squirrels live in parks and other urban environments. (Could it be true that most squirrels do these days?) A built environment is now the habitat of many many squirrels, and it makes little sense to hide this fact in our images. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeeah. I know that many squirrels are in urban environments, but I'm still iffy on it. :\ Plus it's not the only reason for my opposition. Latics (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support a touch-up would be nice, but a caption on the mainpage about the red squirrel (plus a terribly cute pic) is a good thing in my mind. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yup, certainly. Also per Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not much ev--Base64 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]