Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Alaskan Malamute R Bartz.jpg

Alaskan Malamute

Reason

I picked this up from the Commons FPC. The angle might not be the most enciclopedic, but it looks really good and I figured it's worth a try.

Articles this image appears in

Alaskan Malamute, Dog

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --Diego_pmc ^Talk 07:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support the original Love the dog!!!! (as well as the wonderful picture, of course) --Caspian blue 07:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The species is originally from a "wild wild snowy environment", and the cropped version diminishes its surrounding.--Caspian blue 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm unless it's a bird then I doubt the large tract of sky I cropped out diminishes much from its surrounding! The component of land I cropped out is quite minor - I mostly cropped the sky --Fir0002 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose original too much dead space. Support Edit 1 good lighting and interesting subject. That said I agree that the angle isn't particularly good for EV --Fir0002 07:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I really feel like there should be more coordination between the projects. I mean the original is a QI and about to become a FP on Commons, then on en.wp another version of the image is selected—it can get quite messy. (Just mentioned, I'm not against the edit.) Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FP here on Wikipedia, and QI or FP on Commons are entirely different entities. There is, and should be, no connection. On Commons, a "pretty" image can be featured, here, the main consideration is its enc. We're building an encyclopedia, not a poster collection... (Just as an example: "Sunrise over Uluguru", below, is a QI on Commons, but I can't imagine it becoming a FP here.) --Janke | Talk 08:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I know the difference between WP and Com's scopes, but that was not my point. Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So, what is your point? ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think he concerns about "stealing a thunder" from the original creator as supporting the edited version. I feel the edited version is a bit confined. --Caspian blue 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Forget it. I think that in cases where the image is suitable for featured status on both projects, there should be some kind of coordination so that there wouldn't be a separate version of the image for each project. Of course that doesn't apply to all cases. Diego_pmc ^Talk 09:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose edit The original is much better IMO. --Lošmi (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all purely because of the angle. Apart from that, it's an excellent picture. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all per Spikebrennan. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unedited version The extra space around it is not something that distracts. I kinda prefer it as it makes the image a bit less busy. Furthermore, I think the angle is not really a problem for it's intended use.
  talk) 17:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The chill-factor is a bit lost with edit --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. I think the angle adds to the picture, IMO. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both, as at commons. —Ceranthor 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Bad angle. Looking up at the dog feels rather strange, and having the dog from almost precisely the front makes it hard to see its body plan. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both. Good photos, but low enc due to angle. Does this breed have a curved tail like some "northern" dogs? No answer... --Janke | Talk 09:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both per Calliopejen1. Good postcard photo, but not good for an encyclopedia. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to angle only (low enc). Lovely picture otherwise. Matt Deres (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Excellent. Kennedy ^(talk) 11:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unedited version and Oppose edit 1, wich kills the mood. Lycaon (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support original (the angle is not the best) and oppose edit 1 (kills the composition) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per EV concerns.D-rew (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]