Support Striking photogenic image of the colorful Mandrill in seemingly contemplation, It would make for a nice featured picture. ▪◦▪
≡ЅiREX≡Talk 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Though the shading is a bit different, I think there is enough there to identify the species based on the photo. In addition, it's a great shot, with wonderful aesthetics. --
Cody.Pope 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose Love the lighting and subject, but it's just too over sharpened for my liking --
Fir0002 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose A great picture, very artistic, but I feel it is a poor depiction of the subject and not very encyclopedic. 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The former of your oppositions may be true, but certainly not the latter. I suppose it's questionable what qualifies as "encyclopedic". --
Phoenix2(
talk,
review) 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I think it would be more "encyclopedic" if it were a full-body shot in better lighting, to better help the reader grasp the animal's size and shape.
Jellocube27 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support - weak, only due to the effects of downsampling or oversharpening artefacts in the fur - a great image otherwise. Artistic and encyclopedic are NOT mutually exclusive! --
Janke |
Talk 07:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support Nice picture --
Ba'Gamnan |
Talk 12:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment To mediate for the concerns of over-sharpening, we might ask the up-loader to resize the original using bicubic smoother, or another setting. I mean only resize it to it's present size, not smaller which is why we'd need the original to do it. --
Cody.Pope 11:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose – It's a lovely composition, but the right crop is too tight.
Centy 14:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose due to excessive oversharpening. I would support a version that's properly post-processed. --
Moondigger 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Opposewhoa that's a lot of sharpening. No thanks. --
YFB¿ 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose as per comments above and issues that image isn't sharp enough. 'Tis sad, it is a fascinating image....
BookswormTalk to me! 05:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply