Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alouatta seniculus skull

Alouatta seniculus skull edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2011 at 19:48:29 (UTC)

Original - Alouatta seniculus skull

Reason: High quality and EV. This image was made available through Project Phoebus
Articles in which this image appears: Venezuelan red howler
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Didier Descouens

Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 19:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's kind of cute, in a morbid way. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Creepy, good quality and high EV. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
would File:Alouatta seniculus Global.jpg be preferred? Nergaal (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nice to have, but imo the simple perspective image is best in the article. The composite does not give as much detail in thumbnail view. As it is, readers can take in the article with the nice perspective image there, and then click through to see the other angles if they so desire. Jujutacular ^talk 12:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Good image quality, just a shame so many teeth are missing. --Avenue (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: I find the perspective rather misleading. The jaw seems significantly larger, broader, and overall more significant than in this alternative view. The front-on view is a more traditional, appropriate perspective on a skull, imo, giving a better overall impression of the creature. This one also serves the EV better: . Failing either of those alternatives, the composite could be more cleanly composed with fewer images. Maedin\^talk 22:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about putting all three of them into one image? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the composite, the nominated image is really the odd one out and somewhat superfluous with the full profile and the front-on views. I suggest the two I linked above and this one, rotated 180°. Maedin\^talk 20:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I certainly wouldn't stand in the way if we decide to do something like that, but I do still prefer the nominated image. I personally don't find it misleading (just simply what it looks like from this angle for me). I also like the simplicity of the perspective angle in the article, with other angles linked from the description page. Jujutacular ^talk 02:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4.5 supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]