Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/cow

Cow (Swiss Braunvieh breed)

Original - Cow (Swiss Braunvieh breed), below Fuorcla Sesvenna in the Engadin, Switzerland.

Reason: Nicely taken image, with good enc. value. It's hard to get a cow like this with such a background.
Articles this image appears in: Transhumance in the Alps, Livestock, Cattle, Braunvieh
Creator: Daniel Schwen

Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful image. faithless (^speak) 02:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I employed a very brief, generic statement since I saw this as an image which will easily gain the support required to be featured, and therefore I didn't see the need to go in-depth with it. However, since the wording of my support has been attacked (for lack of a better word) below, I will expand on my reasoning. Shoemaker echoes my sentiments on the article's encyclopedic value - a good detailed image of an animal is unquestionable encyclopedic, IMO. Though I'm far from an expert, the technical quality of the image seems very good to me. Most importantly, as far as I'm concerned, this is the type of image that is immediately striking and will make the reader interested in reading about the subject. faithless (^speak) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Beautiful" isn't enough for WP FP - while it is on Commons... The enc of this image is not very high - the animal isn't seen completely, and doesn't do much for Transhumance, either. --Janke | Talk 07:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support nice image. Caught my attention. Yahel Guhan 07:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support Wladyslaw (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the encyclopedic value of this image is high. It is the only illustration of this breed of cow, having been introduced into the home article where there was no prior illustration. It has stood the test of time having been in the articles without objection for a reasonable time. It illustrates more than just the features of the cow - it shows it in its natural environment. As a composition it works well - the back of the cow immitates - but not too obviously - the line of the mountains behind. The image has good depth and an interesting dynamic thrust with the line of mountains driving to the right, being countered by the drive along the cow to the lower foreground. This keeps the eye interested. The placidity of the scene is enhanced by the way in which the cow is nestled within the mountain background, and it is a scene that one could look keep looking at. I am not sure about the sky - there is a lot of it but I think it works. Motmit (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I might wish a little more sharpness to the background, it probably would violate the laws of physics or something awkward and inevvitable like that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect image. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a great image and I am sad to oppose but I just don't see it being of great encyclopaedic value. Most of the cow (the intended subject) is not in view and the background isn't enough to make up for that. Guest9999 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well taken photo. It also has some enc. value, and it's very high quality. diego_pmc (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Though it is a nice picture, there isn't too much enc. It also looks very artificial to me for some reason... TheOtherSiguy (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before wild speculations get started: This pic is straight out of the camera, zero postprocessing. Full stop. --Dschwen 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? It doesn't look fake to me at all. It may be just your computer. It was taken my a great photographer ;) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't mean synthetic, I just meant that it seemed very staged. The lighting is very good, for photographic effect, but the artistic composition distracts, and being that the subject is not completely seen it means that there is less enc. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really amazing for something in nature to appear this way. Great. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 01:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great photo, but not really encyclopedic... crassic!^[talk] 01:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Support Was a finalist in Pricture of the Year 2008 on Commons. ComputerGuy890100^Talk_Polls 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know: How an image performs on Commons has nothing to do with Wiki FPs... Here, encyclopedicity is of prime concern - on Commons, lack of that means nothing... --Janke | Talk 06:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Pricture of the Year" a Freudian slip? And should we just automatically promote all pictures from that competition with Super Strong Supports for that reason? --jjron (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I was wondering the same thing. Who knows, maybe I'd have won that competition... --Dschwen 21:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Best cow Wikipedia has to offer... Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well, I'm not going to say it's the best, but it has certainly caught my eye when I've seen it in articles. I think it meets other criteria sufficiently well, including encyclopaedic value. --jjron (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's good. --Bridgecross (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Raj Krishnamurthy (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The pic illustrates not just a cow, but the Swiss Braunvieh breed, as indicated, so there is enough encyclopedic value. A vivid environment resembles The Lord of the Rings to me. --Brand спойт 22:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Janke--CPacker (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:CH cow 2.jpg MER-C 08:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]