Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/MAV Canidae

MAV Canidae, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2019 at 06:33:09 (UTC)

Info Bases on previous discussion, I gather all Canidae skeletons displayed at MAV - edited by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton - uploaded by Joalpe and Sturm - nominated by -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 06:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 06:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - There are certainly differences in the way these skeletons are photographed. For example, some are yellower or darker than others. But overall, this is a notable achievement, even if a little eerie. Also, it's fitting but in a way odd that one of the skeletons is of a mutt, because there are so many different mixtures possible in a mutt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how this is different to Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/MAV I. Canidae is a huge family of creatures. As others have noted, I wouldn't expect a collection of Lez's shells to be nominated as a set, or a collection of Jee's butterflies to be nominated as a set. The final one (Saint Bernard dog) is poor quality. As the FP page says: "Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats". Here we have a few species/breeds of canids: there are 34 species, and hundreds of breeds of dogs. The fact that this may be the entire collection currently at MAV isn't IMO enough to make this a set, it just tells me that their collection is rather limited. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Yann (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basile is right below about the blown highlights. Yann (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Certainly good VI candidates, but this one is relatively small and the head is unsharp, this one has blown highlights. I don't think each of them would be promoted if they were nominated separately, thus I don't see why they should be as a set -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sturm (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Joalpe como sempre com as melhores contribuições fotográficas. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. – Lucas 22:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great collective work. And thanks, ArionEstar ;) --Joalpe (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This support vote was canvassed. See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Voting issues with Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton and Joalpe -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile and Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vote stricken per Colin's observation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, Obvious canvassing is just stupid and childish. And per the set itself: Is it complete series of something, or some are missing ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No system, a random mixture of a few of much more Canidae species and of a few of a lot of races of dogs --Llez (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile and Colin.--BoothSift 00:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]