Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tuxedo longhair cat - Spanky.jpg

Tuxedo cat

I happen to think this is an excellent cat portrait, and not just because it's my own cat. Facial details are sharp and colors are bright and well-balanced. Spanky (that's his name) decorates the Domestic longhaired cat article. This my first self-nom so take it easy on me, people. :)

Self-nominate and abstain. howch e ng {chat} 21:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. C'mon Howcheng! :-) Did you try applying FPC rules to this image before you nominated it? Does it add significantly to the understanding of the article? A closeup facial portrait is fine for a prominent human being, but since this is demonstrating a cat, surely it should show more than just a fluffy face. It would need to show the entire cat at least. And it would have to be pretty damned spectacular to be a featured picture of a cat..! In any case, it IS quite a nice image, but there are too many just like it. I have probably 20-30 pics of my cat that I could upload to wikipedia, but they'd be somewhat redundant. The article is full of them. You certainly picked a difficult category for your first self nom! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's so unencyclopedic about a great close-up of the face of a cat? If a photo illustrates the facial features very well, what's wrong with that? Not that I'm saying this photo is necessarily the perfect close-up, but I don't see why a photo must show the whole cat to be sufficiently encyclopedic. Raven4x4x 23:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it doesn't have to show the whole cat. I was just saying that it faces a tougher battle for FP because it inheritantly loses significance in the article when it only illustrates a small portion of the cat and would probably have to be outstanding to qualify. This is just my opinion, I suppose. Perhaps I should upload a photo or two as I have an interesting image of my cat 'stalking' a magpie, but I don't think I'd nominate it for FPC. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish oppose. The image is quite sharp and I like the eyes. However, I think the background is distracting. (BTW, nice vibrissae here!) --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights in the cat's eye (minor), and I can't make out the face from the body. Overall, I like Fir's cat better (below), and he's getting opposed there too. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite boring and its not very appealing to the eye. I have pictures of my cats of this caliber. --Midnight Rider 04:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose — Technically a good photograph, I'm just afraid we aren't seeing enough of the cat's facial features due to it facing downwards. Considering this is your first nom, I can see there's some promise in there. Take photos of things we need featured pictures of, and I'm sure we'll be seeing more of your photos (no more birds!). ♠ SG →Talk 08:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a quality picture, but IMO far from FP standards. We really need to give the FP status to a cat!. Alvesgaspar 09:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The blown highlights and low DOF ruin it for me. NauticaShad e s 09:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Distracting background; difficult to distinguish head and body. Pstuart84 18:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry howcheng, I have to agree with Diliff that you've picked just about the most difficult subject to get through FPC; thousands (millions?) of people must have taken photos of their cats from this sort of viewpoint. There's not much wrong with the quality or the composition in my view, but it's just not that special. SG is spot on - go and take photos this good of things we currently lack good photos of, and you'll be onto a winner =) --YFB ¿ 02:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]