Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Western Gray Squirrel
- Reason
- high technical standard, high resolution, free license, avoids unnecessary digital alteration.
- Articles this image appears in
- Squirrel (ineligible: gallery), Western Gray Squirrel
- Creator
- Fastily
Support as nominator --FASTILY (TALK) 04:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Support CroppedSquirrel!!! Yay!!! ... but really, high quality photo,good but not great EV, makes the cut. Uncropped version, not so much, but hey, cropped one works. Nezzadar ☎ 05:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hold the phones.
Weak Opposeper its exceedingly low EV on the one article it is placed on. Oops. If a subspecies specific page comes about and that photo is used, come again. Nezzadar ☎ 05:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)- Oops, sorry, I meant to add it to Western Gray Squirrel originally. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hold the phones.
- Comment I changed the nomination details above to reflect that the image is only in a gallery at the very end of the squirrel article. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
ConditionalFull Support Yours is the better gray squirrel, so if you switch yours in for the lead on the page Western Gray Squirrel then I'll support. If not, too low EV for my taste. Nezzadar ☎ 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)- Better quality perhaps, but the 'whole animal' image is more suitable for the taxobox. A number of your votes on recent noms are based on how prominent the image is in the article. While I can sympathise with your reasoning, and agree that an image should be suitably placed for sufficient EV, please be aware that article positioning can be short term - for example if this went into the taxobox and in two weeks someone switched it back out would you put it up for delisting? What we are evaluating is whether the image contributes sufficient EV to an article, not how prominently it is displayed. --jjron (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see prominence as part of EV. However, I see your point. I will remove conditional. I love squirrels. Nezzadar ☎ 18:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Prominence is part of EV only in so far as it is deserved prominence. In any case, an image could be extremely valuable in illustrating an important point further down an article. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see prominence as part of EV. However, I see your point. I will remove conditional. I love squirrels. Nezzadar ☎ 18:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Better quality perhaps, but the 'whole animal' image is more suitable for the taxobox. A number of your votes on recent noms are based on how prominent the image is in the article. While I can sympathise with your reasoning, and agree that an image should be suitably placed for sufficient EV, please be aware that article positioning can be short term - for example if this went into the taxobox and in two weeks someone switched it back out would you put it up for delisting? What we are evaluating is whether the image contributes sufficient EV to an article, not how prominently it is displayed. --jjron (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I really think this might be a young California Ground Squirrel. Note the ear tips, the incomplete eye ring and the mottling on the body. –droll [chat] 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Withdraw Nomination. Droll brings up an excellent point. I'd like an opportunity to verify the species of the squirrel lest it should be erroneously displayed on the main page. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)