Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Emu portrait.jpg

File:Emu portrait.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2010 at 03:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jafeluv (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support well selected DOF! - Man On Mission (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture. Steven Walling 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yet another undocumented cagebird. We have far too many captive animals and cultivated plants, etc. featured already, and far too few located documented wild origin animal and plant photos. - MPF (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What difference does it make if it's a wild animal or a caged one? --Muhammad (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because species are not uniform entities. They vary from place to place within their native range. Without knowledge of the exact location of its origin, one cannot know much about this individual. Suppose for example, that future research shows that the "Emu" is actually a complex of several different species (very plausible, for a sedentary species like this; the species is also divided into three subspecies, which one is this photo of?) - then captive specimens of unknown origin become merely unidentified emus. See e.g. the discussion as to whether any Barbary Lions still exist or not; the accompanying photos of captive animals can only be captioned "Possible Barbary lion". Also, morphology and behaviour are often affected by the conditions of captivity / cultivation, resulting in a photo that is not representative of the species. Contrast this with your File:Sambar deer Cervus unicolor.jpg showing a wild animal at a known location: that image is far more valuable as its identity is fully defined, and I would contend definitely should be featured for this reason, even if the artistic quality of the image is a bit less than some voters seem to demand. - MPF (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - An accurate image description makes the difference between a nice photograph and a scientific illustration. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Maurice van Bruggen (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per MPF. - Keta (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We can have multiple FPs on the same subject, one (or more) in captivity and one in the wild, if needed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Images of animals have much more scientific value if the location is given. The image description says that the image is taken in Bangalore, but I do not think that this is adequate and I think that it should say what zoo or collection it is in. I would say that the image description is inadequate for a FP. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds