Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Close-up of a snow leopard

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portrait of snow leopard[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2013 at 07:21:42 (UTC)

Original – Portrait of a male snow leopard (Uncia uncia) of the Rheintal zoo.
The Original Original - The image before it was unnecessarily and detrimentally edited. Portrait of a male snow leopard (Uncia uncia) of the Rheintal zoo.
Reason
Good quality and high EV for the description section.
Articles in which this image appears
Snow leopard, List of Indian state animals, Wangchuck Centennial Park
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Tambako The Jaguar on Flickr from Switzerland and edited by Niabot
  • Support either as nominator --BNK(talk) 07:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unedited Original I didn't know that the background was changed—BNK(talk) 16:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I didn't observe. I corrected it. Thanks for pointing out. --BNK(talk) 11:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The sharpness! --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 18:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Edited image (original nom) per edited background. Weak Support unedited original I really do wish crop wasn't as tight on the chin. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 23:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unedited original Excellent portrait, beautiful animal. Cowtowner (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support UNEDITED Original, Strong Oppose Edited The change in background is needlessly artificial, and, regardless of that, the edit removes essential definition around the edge of the leopard, especially at the bottom around its neck and at the top across its crown, where the fine and encyclopedically valuable, especially for those studying the animal, outline of fur has been corrupted into a nondescript grey-beige blur and cut off, respectively. I understand that the editor desired to take the animal out of the zoo and place it in its natural habitat, perhaps in a spirit of adding relevancy and value to the image, but this is far too drastic, and, as aforementioned, needlessly and arbitrarily robs the image of far more encyclopedic value than it could ever hope to add. And all that for a white background of snow. This is not the image that was taken; it was never a scene in reality. The background in the original zoo image, as such, is too unremarkable to make any detraction; it's not as if there's a handler or steel cage distractingly juxtaposed there. On the contrary, the original version is more defined, more truthful and sincere to its viewers, and, in my opinion, makes the snow leopard stand out more in definition; the original pulls attention more, looks cleaner, and exudes a certain kind of class that the edited version does not. I sincerely hope others follow my lead here. However, if you were to place the original original image, which I find both dazzling and savagely beautiful, in place of this art project of the digital age (and I am sincerely sorry if I offend the editor; this just has to be said), you will then have my unadulterated Support. Indefatigable2 (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replaced the edited image with the unedited original in all the pages where the edited image was being used. – BNK(talk) 01:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. I was actually writing a reply thinking that the only alteration had been the addition of space to the bottom and I ECed with this. I'm rather glad I did now. Loss of detail doesn't justify the gain; I also don't think the tightness at the bottom (in the original original) is a major concern. Cowtowner (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes! Actually, the tightness could be considered a benefit; it frames the animal's face very nicely, and draws the viewer in more. Nothing is lost from tightness on this photo, but much is lost from amending and doctoring it. The image with the white background is two photographs arbitrarily melded into one; it is a visual lie of sorts. Indefatigable2 (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong. I think a little more space under the chin would make for a better picture, but the condition of the rest of the image negates that value. What I mean to say is that I don't think the framing is so tight as to be reason for opposing the image. Cowtowner (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose edited images as such have no place among other FP's. -- mcshadypl TC 02:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I prefer the original original, but I want to know what the creature looks like apart from its head. A photograph of the mountain lion's head could possibly give the wrong impression of what the cat looks like since its head is so teeny-tiny compared to its immense body. I would argue the same thing here. Plus its fur patterns is extremely important. Nice picture, but it's a floating head. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unedited original Tomer T (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Snow leopard portrait.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Close-up_of_a_snow_leopard&oldid=1138496320"