Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red Fox in winter

Red Fox in winter coat

Original - This Red Fox was found in the yard of a Evergreen, Colorado photographer. The fox is seen in its winter coat.

Edit 1 Increased saturation, made a little lighter.

Reason: This picture of a wild fox (nicknamed Freddy by the photographer) was taken in the middle of the winter in the photographer's yard. I think it meets the FP criteria as it a) has high EV, in the article Red Fox, b) is of sufficient quality, and c) is of a sufficient resolution. (It's also hella cute!)
Articles this image appears in: Red Fox
Creator: Rob Lee

Support as nominator --X clamation point 23:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — So cute! Yes, I know that's not part of the criteria... — Jake Wartenberg 23:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per jake. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — agree with Jake. Extremely cute, and a good picture at it. Goosta (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is this users second edit. The first was a userpage edit Noodle snacks (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although the picture is little dark, wow......the subject is tooooo cute to oppose! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspian blue (talk • contribs) 01:58, 2 March 2009
Oppose Undersaturated and cut off, insufficient depth of field. And presumably because of the 85% jpeg encoding (which is rather low for an FP candidate), it dips into artefact country on the neck. It's a clear-as-rain oppose to me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While it may be a little undersaturated and a little cut off, getting an up close picture of a wild animal such as this is extremely difficult, and should be taken into consideration. Xclamation point 04:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can appreciate the difficulty in closeups of wild animals, ~~but you got too close unfortunately!~~ Noodle snacks (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually had a look at the flickr source. It seems there are plenty to choose from (which puts forward the argument that this fox is in fact fairly tame). see this set. I bet there is a superior image there somewhere Noodle snacks (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Extremely difficult"? Hardly. Foxes are commonplace in many areas. I took this horrendous photo when a fox wandered up totally unexpected in a national park, and stood waiting for 30 seconds. It was actually too close for my crappy telephoto! Anyway, the FPC here is a very nice photo at thumbnail size, but blown up it's pretty noisy and lacks detail. Stevage 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PLW, and it seems underexposed too. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Papa Lima Whiskey and Noodle Snacks - but it is a cute picture :) - Fastily (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, cute. Oppose per PLW: my principal objection is the fact that so much of the head is cut off. Other featured animal head-shot portraits do not have this problem. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Noisey, not very good lighting/contrast. Kaldari (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Cut off. This greatly detracts from EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient technical quality, bad composition and poor EV. --Jf268 (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]