Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Waterberg Nashorn2.jpg
- Reason
- I think the image is illustrative because you see a rhino from the front and from the side in a single image. It's valuable because there are not too many wild living rhino pictures. It's one of the highest resolution rhino pictures we have.
- Articles in which this image appears
- White Rhinoceros, Rhinoceros
- Creator
- Ikiwaner
- Support as nominator --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose In my opinion (and I may be wrong about the technical definitions here) there seems to be a lot of noise on the rhinos themselves, especially the furthest away... It looks like it has a fur coat in fact... The horn of the closest seems very blurred too... Shame though as its a very rare photograph I would imagine... Gazhiley (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- This comment is somewhat unreasonable. The picture has >8MP (more than 4x as many pixels as Noodle snacks butterfly and almost 5x more than Muhammads Culex sp, both of which just got promoted). Judging images at 100% without any regard for resolution makes no sense. You are basically punishing the uploader for not uploading a degraded downsampled version that would fool amateurs into thinking that the image is tack shap. Lame! --Dschwen 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not unreasonable at all... I have no idea about technical reasons/fixes... They just look like they have fur coats and horns due to the fuzziness... End of... Gazhiley (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- This comment is somewhat unreasonable. The picture has >8MP (more than 4x as many pixels as Noodle snacks butterfly and almost 5x more than Muhammads Culex sp, both of which just got promoted). Judging images at 100% without any regard for resolution makes no sense. You are basically punishing the uploader for not uploading a degraded downsampled version that would fool amateurs into thinking that the image is tack shap. Lame! --Dschwen 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- File:Waterberg Nashorn1.jpg has not so much noise. – Wladyslaw (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Image page needs English description for en:wiki. The image itself is very nice, but re quality, I'm at a bit of a loss too - with the camera and settings you wouldn't expect much noise, but there does appear to be quite a lot in the background. Perhaps the lens used? --jjron (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
