Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Military working dog

Military working dog

Reason: Good quality image showing working dog and relation with human.
Articles this image appears in: Dog, War dog
Creator: Flickr

Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - as an illustration of a dog per se, this is lacking - the dog is unsharp and not being a "standard" dog. Maybe if the article found a home in a more appropriate article - like "Military Canines" or something like that. de Bivort 17:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not an illustration of a dog, the image is showing the relationship between dog and human. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason I said that is that you only included "dog" as the article illustrated by the image in the original nom. Glad to see it is used more specifically.

weak oppose there are the same technical issues, and really, I would like to see the dog in its military capacity if possible, rather than waiting around. de Bivort 20:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mario1987 17:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Clegs (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low technical quality, and the subject is not that unique or portrayed in a unique way.--Svetovid (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean by "the subject is not that unique or portrayed in a unique way"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a historic photo and a relatively easy to reproduce scene.--Svetovid (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose poor quality at full resolution. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Serious compression artifacts at full resolution. No wow factor. Kaldari (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The coloring isn't great, and at full size, it is slightly blurry and grainy. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juliancolton, Kaldari. Cacophony (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Secondary subject cut off, poor quality at high resolution. Centy – reply• contribs – 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]