Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chipmunk (71669).jpg

File:Chipmunk (71669).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 16:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info an Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) nibbling in the New York Botanical Garden. own work — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I take it you pay this model peanuts... --Cart (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Just doing me a favor because I helped him with a tough case once. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A bit small for the "new" FP standart not official, arbust distracting on foreground (note added) and composition problem (too hight angle shoot) --The Photographer 23:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm surprised to hear the opinion that a ~5 megapixel image of a small subject is too small. Nothing I can do about that (or the angle) now I suppose. I'd be happy to try cropping a bit if that's what this discussion yields, though. Maybe a bit less than the note says (such that the grass still kind of frames the subject, to the left/right and behind). Curious to get other thoughts. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing your picture with images in the same FP subject, the smaller photos are at least 10 years older than this, of all the things that I told you that It's the only thing measurable, the rest is only a personal opinion humbly --The Photographer 23:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also find the size a bit small (or just limit), especially considering the composition could be cut at the bottom and on the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support small but convincingly nice --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly per The Photographer. The small size (and small subject within the frame) isn't an absolute fail for wildlife, but mainly that it gets no points for detail, resolution, when we're trying to work out what is exceptional here. If this was some rare species and the lens was already 400mm then I'd be more forgiving, but this is in a city garden. I don't think subject size is really a factor, just the appropriate choice of lens. Subject distance is generally more of a limitation, and our best wildlife photography often shows a good deal of effort to get close to the subject (and hours and hours of missed chances). The green shoots are also a bit distracting. And agree that getting down at the same height as the subject is often superior. -- Colin (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - Very good photo and worth nominating, but I ultimately oppose per others, mainly because of the size, but also for the other reasons cited. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]