Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Juvenile Pongo pygmaeus

Juvenile Pongo pygmaeus

Reason

Okay, yes, it is on the small side, but it does meet the criteria. Sharp and clear, well-framed, good quality. Shows the "laughing" behaviour.

Articles in which this image appears

Laughing

Creator

Malene Thyssen

• Support as nominator —
  talk 17:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• oppose for the given size this is neither sharp nor clear (and 0.88MP is ridiculously small). --Dschwen 01:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean 0.93 MP? I think "ridiculous" is a strong word, considering that it does meet the criteria and the standard upload by Benjamint is only 1.7. As for the rest, I think there's some slight movement blur on the face where he was caught mid-expression, but I found it acceptable.
  talk 09:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I actually mean 0.88, sorry but I'm still thinking in 1024² rather than the marketing-cosmetics-units ;-). Anyhow there are plenty of compression artifacts in the fur and the end result is not clear at all. This is low quality. But I guess some funny-monkey-supports (pardon, ape!) are inevitable. I suggest next time we put the monkey in a tuxedo -> instant FP. --Dschwen 13:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really sure why you're being so sarcastic, Dschwen, :) Apart from you implying that I somehow nominated this because I prefer apes in tuxedos and doing tricks, I don't entirely disagree with your comments. I've asked Malene for a bigger image, with less compression. We'll see what she says; if nothing comes of it, *shrug*.
  talk 13:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Mine and Fir's standard is very close to double this size.... (Are they compression artifacts btw? I assumed they were a few strokes of strong selective sharpening (The end result is the same of course)) Benjamint 13:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but considering that Dschwen thinks this is "ridiculously small", your 0.8MP increase on that says "only slightly less ridiculous" to me. In any case, this was uploaded at that resolution in 2004 (which was fairly standard back then).
  talk 13:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Anyone seen Spaceballs? Reminds of ludicrous speed :-). Well, I'm certainly not wowed by Benjamintt's size (and still "blame" Fir for setting such a bad example) but using him as a justification for uploading at just half the size of him does not strike me as a logical argument. --Dschwen 15:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you didn't mean it like that, but just for the record: the uploader is Malene Thyssen. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, solely because of the hilarious expression on this ape's face! -- œ^™ 05:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dschwen aswell as cloning artifacts in bg --Benjamint 06:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing out the cloning artefacts, I think I've fixed them all.
  talk 09:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose per Dschwen's first comment -- looks quirky when viewed as a thumbnail, but very disappointing when viewed at full size.
  talk) 15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, This picture shows a lot of character. The expression alone outweighs the "quality" issues. It brought a smile to my face, something a lot of FPs can not do. Tim1337 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this is precisely what my tuxedo remark referred to: anthropomorphisation of animals. It is absolutely unencyclopaedic to interpret character into this. --Dschwen 18:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be wrong to interpret human characteristics in animals, but an animal of this intelligence is more than capable of having its own character, surely. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- it's not "sharp and clear" at all, which says a lot considering how small the image is. Diego_pmc ^Talk 17:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm beginning to wonder if the complaints about sharpness are actually about resolution. The focus plane seems to be to be in the right place, and DOF is good. Nothing unsharp about his wrinkles, for instance. Resolution actually also seems fine to me by Wikipedia's WIAFP standards. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Resolution is not great but meets the criteria. --Muhammad(talk) 00:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]