Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brown bear

Brown Bear in Norway

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 20:49:25 (UTC)

Reason: High-quality photo of a brown bear, Ursus arctos. Awaiting filemove to "Bear_in_norway.jpg".
Articles in which this image appears: Bear, Brown bear
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Noen André/Soldatnytt

Support as nom. Paolo Napolitano 20:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved it to File:Ursus arctos - Norway.jpg, rather than what you suggested. Firstly, "Bear" doesn't identify the species, secondly, Latin binomials are recommended for species images on commons, mostly to make it easier to find in other languages. Common names can sometimes be ambiguous. For example, different national authorities both had a "Wood Duck" in Australia, and the United States at one point. Many authorities are trying to push "Maned Duck" on the Australians, but most of us use "Australian Wood Duck" now. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fence makes the environment obviously unnatural. The image quality is inexplicably poor, given the expensive equipment used. Shooting through a fence usually results in a loss of contrast rather than sharpness in my experience. It hasn't been in an article for a week either, but one is close. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does the bear look like a statue to anyone else? --Guerillero | My Talk 02:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More like a painting...--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 15:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing is in focus except the claws, very noisy. Could be reshot easily seeing the animal is in a zoo. Clegs (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely has a lot of wow factor, which I think makes up for the fence and it being slightly slightly out of focus (which you wouldn't notice unless you zoom it up all the way anyway).126.109.231.71 (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you view it in full size? The bad quality easily trumps the so-called "wow factor". Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 09:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I did, and I disagree.126.109.231.71 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to sign in to vote. Anonymous votes are generally disregarded. O.J. (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per bad quality. Nik thestoned 11:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]