Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Long-tailed macaque

Long-tailed (or crab-eating) macaque

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2018 at 11:07:24 (UTC)

Original – Long-tailed (or crab-eating) macaque in Labuk Bay, Borneo

Reason: High quality image illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Crab-eating macaque
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Wii Willie Wiki 19:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the teeth? I'd support something with a closed mouth, but the teeth are too distracting (and variable between specimens) for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Needs to see a dentist. ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Chris. Distracting. Sca (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would have thought that the teeth being visible only adds to the EV. If anything it's a beautiful photograph (very high quality) of a rather ugly-looking animal (by human standards). I'm surprised that the lack of good dentistry is being used as a rationale. nagualdesign 06:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So was I. Chris might wish to explain how he can can reject this nomination as "variable between specimens", yet approve the pink flower above when specimens can be blue or green! Reject by all means, but voters (especially the admin) should be consistent in their logic if the FP project is to have credibility. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "reject" anything. I simply made a comment. And in case you missed it, my main problem was with this specimen's teeth. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is what the other !voters focused on. The teeth. You got comments about them on Commons too. I'm not sure how this is a surprise to you. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chris, you did as you say only comment not reject: but you did say "variable between specimens", hence my reaction. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write "Oppose" in bold. I have no idea where you got the idea that anything other than a support is a rejection. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologisd for saying you rejected my nomination. Read what I wrote above. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@nagualdesign: The problem is not the visibility of the teeth, per se. The problem is the distraction they pose, which detracts from the aesthetics of the image. It's the same reason people frequently oppose images for having distracting backgrounds, even if technically the images are perfect. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics? Be serious. Anthropomorphic judgmentalism has no place here! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're distracting in the same way that backgrounds are sometimes distracting, since they form part of the subject. They certainly draw your attention, but that is not the same as being distracting. I'd say it's the opposite. I expect that a crab-eating animal requires teeth like a can opener. As for the comments on Commons, the image gained unanimous support despite people's jokes about the teeth. Daniel Case's comment about the teeth was, "his teeth, while far from perfect, are better than the mountain gorilla's", and by that I think he was referring to this dentally challenged specimen (also a Featured Picture there). nagualdesign 01:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gorilla is in no way dentally challenged. 100% healthy. It is quite dangerous to make this type of criticism if you are not at all familiar with the species. Blackened teeeth are typical for wild gorillas. Charlesjsharp 11:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Dentally challenged" was just tongue-in-cheek remark, you plonker. It isn't a medical term, and I don't think it was even slightly dangerous. And I am reasonably familiar with the species, thanks. This isn't the nineteeenth century. Are you saying that the macaque's teeth aren't typical? nagualdesign 12:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Aesthetically pleasing or not, I don't think this photo of this specimen is representative of the species in general. Sure, wild animals often have plenty of health conditions that alter their appearance, but unless I'm mistaken we usually try to feature photos of healthy and intact individuals. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PetarM (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]