Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Rhynchocyon petersi one.JPG

Rhynchocyon petersi edit

Original

Reason: Encyclopedic and high quality image of an animal that there is minimal knowledge about on Wikipedia.
Proposed caption: The Black and Rufous Elephant Shrew, Rhynchocyon petersi, is one of 15 species of elephant shrew alive today in Africa. When first described by Western Scientists in the 19th century, they were classified with Shrews as Insectivora. Later, they were discovered to be more closely related to rabbits, primates, and ungulates.
Articles this image appears in: Black and Rufous Elephant Shrew, Rhynchocyon
Creator: ZeWrestler

Support as nominator ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support--Mbz1 01:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
oppose grainy, washed out, subject, while cute, blends in too much with its background. Debivort 02:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to Debivort's reasoning, this is not a good angle on the elephant shrew. You can't see its tail at all, and I personally prefer animal-height images. Enuja 02:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be rare, but I think that must be the most hideous animal I have ever seen, lol. Chris.B 10:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Debivort. Cacophony 05:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any problems on the shrew itself, and the ground looks fairly naturally-coloured to me. Maybe it could be cropped a bit tighter? Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Debivort. thegreen J Are you green? 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is clearly washed out and has flat lighthing. There are many things wrong. sorry, -Fcb981 03:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I think that's a natural colour for dry, but hummus-rich soil. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the real problem is it just looks too snapshotty. The POV is human-height rather than down on the ground, the subject is looking at the camera in a "please don't hurt me" way, and it looks like flash has been used, with some natural light as well. Compare to some of the existing FP's. Stevage 06:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above (except the bit about it being hideous--it's cute!). There also seems to be a bit of flare/aberration, but that could've been from the flash. Fine for its article, but not FP caliber IMO. --Peter 23:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]