Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sow with Piglet

Sow with Piglet

A mother sow nursing her piglet.

Edit by trialsanderrors — cropped, qualifty enhanced.

Reason: Encyclopedic, and a well taken picture.
Articles this image appears in: Pig, omnivore
Creator: Scott Bauer
Nominator: RyGuy17

Support: per nomination. RyGuy17 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, it needs a caption. There also appears to be jpg artifact at the bottom, fuzziness, and a little up and left of the big-pig's head you see a scratch line. gren グレン 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I removed the scratch line and a whole slew of scanner artifacts. The background is far from perfect, but the subject is in focus and the composition is good enough to support. ~ trialsanderrors 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I added my own edit and support that. ~ trialsanderrors 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred - Adrian Pingstone 22:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose See reasons above Penubag 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag[reply]
~~Oppose~~Support I can't get over the background. I think it would be a nice picture if the mud was just brown. Basar 02:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that as a matter of aesthetics or because you think the mud is blown out? gren グレン 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess aesthetics; it just seems a little distracting. Why, are those blown out reflections or is that just a bunch of white stuff on the ground? It also might be nice to have more DOF. Basar 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like some heavy frost or light snowfall. anyway Support, highly enc (nursing, farm, pig, etc.) good quality. -Fcb981 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is quite certainly frost. I checked for blown highlights but didn't see any digital white. Even the very light areas have structure. ~ trialsanderrors 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I never thought of frost, maybe that's because I'm from California. I think it's OK now. Basar 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. I find several distractions in the picture. The sow's tail is docked, and she has an ear tag. The sow is not washed or cleaned. I would expect to see a better looking pig competing at my local county fair. At least the piglet is clean and extraordinary looking. The picture as a whole doesn't strike me as an extraordinary picture of a pig (as my grandpa had these Yorkshire pigs when I used to help at his pig farm). The snow in the background doesn't provide a great contrast like some nice green grass or mud would. Royalbroil^T : C 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so, but isn't it nice to have a pig looking like a pig and not all prettied up? I think that mud would be nice too, but if pigs live in frost, then I think it's enc. Basar 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- come on, if you want a perfect picture of a pig someone can make an .svg picture. This is a great animal shot, full of life (for a change) Good lighting, composition, clerity is great. Tag on ear is Enc to farm. -Fcb981 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A FP should be the best that Wikipedia has to offer. It's just a dirty pig to me. It's probably more than mud if you know what I mean. Look at these clean pigs and tell me that they don't look much better: Hampshire Duroc a clean Yorkshire . Either that, or go to a ~~dirty~~ muddy pig like this one. Notice that it they still ~~has its~~ have their tail intact and no ear tag. Royalbroil^T : C 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I cleaned up my wording above a bit to better reflect my thoughts. I realize that my words are quite harsh (which is unusual for me), but I expect a featured picture of any animal to feature show quality animal. FP is a high standard. Royalbroil^T : C 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why? The criteria require accuracy, not prettiness. Would you also reject pictures of cats unless they're best-in-show? ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Both aesthetics and encyclopaedic value are required. The line of reasoning "it's hard to take a pretty photo of X" is bogus, sorry. Stevage 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Certainly not my line. I think the dirty pig rocks and would def'ly take it over a washed one. ~ trialsanderrors 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        umm, it's not mud. Mud requires the temperature to be above freezing, and the snow indicated otherwise. It's 4 letter word that starts with S. I could be in favor of a pig with a muddy snout and/or muddy legs. That is not the case here. There are other breeds of pigs that look a lot nicer with some s... on them like I linked to above. I bet you couldn't even see the s... on the red breed called Durocs. Royalbroil^T : C 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Huh? What? Who are you talking to? ~ trialsanderrors 22:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both Tomer T 13:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I thought about it for a bit, but no. It's glarey, with not much contrast, and the quality just isn't great. The composition is nice, but it's let down by so many other things. The bright background is just too displeasing. Stevage 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aesthetically painful to look at. It's just used to illustrate "pig" and "omnivore," there is no reason to have an ugly sow with an ear-tag and a distracting background. Enuja 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I just feel there are better pictures of pigs out there and so, this is not one of Wikipedia's best works.Bernalj90 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In my opinion, this is just an ordinary picture of a (muddy) pig. I don't see anything special about it. -Wutschwlllm 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]