Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eastern Grey Squirrel in St James's Park, London - Nov 2006 edit.jpg

I took this about a month ago and thought it might be worthy of nomination but never got around to it. Its a sharp, detailed and very encyclopaedic image of an Eastern Grey Squirrel for the following reasons. You can see almost every major part of the Squirrel - The paws, feet/claws, bushy tail, typical food (well, in a park!) and typical habitat (a tree). And above all, it is also really cute. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There's a bit of grain (such as eye), but otherwise it's a very nice shot with high enc. (And I changed the title from "ExampleName"). --Tewy 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support edit 1. I didn't mind the branch before, and the edit was downsized slightly. --Tewy 18:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Downsized? They have identical dimensions! If you are referring to the difference in file size, I don't think the fact I used higher compression is a deterimental aspect unless you can see some kind of compression artefacts. --Fir0002 21:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Woah, I'm not sure what I saw before...sorry. I'm going to leave it at weak support, however, because I think removing a part of the photo is unnecessary in this case. --Tewy 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very cute encyclopaedic. --Arctic Gnome 08:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support both, but I prefer the branch-less one. --Arctic Gnome 09:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either Awwwwwwww..... (per above) --antilived ^{T | C | G} 08:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Yikes, a tree-rat! Nice composition, but there is considerable noise. Apparent when you look into the rat's squirrel's eye. --Dschwen 08:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for that is that I selectively applied noise reduction. The body of the squirrel received no noise reduction as it gives the effect of a 'plastic wrap' over detail, but it works well on out of focus areas and makes the background a little nicer (and doesn't remove any useful detail in this case). It was shot at ISO1600 which was necessary to achieve a usable depth of field and shutter speed, so noise actually isn't too bad considering. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original (yeah, I cahnged my mind about the noise), but Oppose edit, the branch is fine, removing elements from pictures is not (imho). Uh, that's unless the edit was another funny joke I didn't get... --Dschwen 09:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support original - I don't agree on the "considerable noise". What bothers me, and the reason for the "weak", is the presence of those distracting branches in the background. The composition and posture of the squirrel are very good. Alvesgaspar 10:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per nom. Debivort 16:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportSupport Edit 1, nice picture. It's great that the picture even shows the squirrel eating. I changed my support to Edit 1 since the branch, although not too much of a distraction, was better off being removed. --RandomOrca2 16:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Unfortunately, that branch skewers the poor little creature... --Janke | Talk 20:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Sharkface217 20:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either with preference for edit. Personally I don't feel the branch is too much of a problem. Very nice colors/season --Fir0002 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Better now. I'm not bothered by the editing as long as it doesn't fake the subject or the enc value Alvesgaspar 10:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 per all above. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 15:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. The squirrel is so cute! The branch takes away from the quality in the original so edit 1 is a better choice. Ilikefood 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Nice pic, no branch please! its distracting. Prefer the edit. - Advanced 20:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version I support either version of this picture, although I slightly prefer Edit 1 over the original. The nomination of this picture sums up its value pretty well. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent, my favorite so far!!!--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, clear image, encyclopedic. The branch behind didn't bother me, but either image is good. You'll have to try and get an image of a red squirrel to the same standard! Bob talk 13:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Another squirrel FP material. - Darwinek 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Edit 1. Wonderful. Noclip 05:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original, I think the branch balances the composition. drumguy8800 C T 11:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. enochlau (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 I didn't like that branch. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Eastern Grey Squirrel in St James's Park, London - Nov 2006 edit.jpg Raven4x4x 01:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]