Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kitten

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Kitten at six weeks old

Reason

It's sharp, has an interesting composition, no artifacts, is in focus. And how can you say no to them eyes? --Hadseys 12:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed caption

Kittens are young domesticated cats that are not fully-grown. A litter of kittens usually consists of two to five kittens. They are born after a gestation that lasts between 64-67 days, with an average length of 66 days. For the first several weeks, kittens are unable to urinate or defecate without being stimulated by their mother. They are also unable to regulate their body temperature for the first three weeks, so kittens born in temperatures less than 27 °C (80 °F) can die from exposure if they are not kept warm by their mother. The mother's milk is very important for the kittens' nutrition and proper growth; so if possible, the kitten should not be taken from their mother for at least 5 to 6 weeks after birth. This milk transfers antibodies to the kittens, which helps protect them against infectious disease. Newborn kittens are also unable to produce concentrated urine, so have a very high requirement for fluids

Articles this image appears in

Kitten

Creator

André Karwath aka Aka

• Support as nominator Hadseys 12:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good clear image, good angle and subject. Very well done. Chris H 12:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per above. Excellent image. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It's so sad to oppose such a cute kitten, but I don't like the fact that the (out of focus) tip of the kitten's tail is right under an (out of focus) bit of brown background greenery, making the kitten's tail look a bit forked, even in the full version. Enuja 18:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe its a devil cat :-P
• Support A very illustrative, high-quality photo. Jellocube27 22:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • DOn't forget cute :-P
• Oppose both - Really cute but anyone noticed the technical flaws: overexposure, burned areas, oversharpening, noise? - Alvesgaspar 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Can this be edited so it doesn't have so many technical flaws mentioned by Alvesgaspar? If not, oppose.--Svetovid 00:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support and comment ran this through my autofix button on Windows phot galler and the alternative came out. Dunno if it helps--Brendan44 02:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sorry, but it didn't work. You would have to re-start with the original unprocessed picture. Alvesgaspar 09:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Per Alvesgaspar - the quality just isn't there. I've uploaded an edit which reduces the over sharpening, but the blown highlights aren't recoverable from this file. --Fir0002 10:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems converting it to srgb from a Nikon colourspace has made it darker - I can fix this if people don't like it... --Fir0002 10:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support second picture. Smokizzy (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, very cute kitten but per above the technical quality just isn't there for such a common and easily photographed subject. ~ Veledan • | T | 19:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose For such a common subject, the technical aspects should be perfect. The distracting grass in the background and the various minor technical problems can easily be eliminated by placing the cat in a controlled environment (like a mini studio)...like all those bug pics. Sorry. Jumping cheese 16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor composition.. Tail gets lost in background. For a picture of a common domestic animal, the photo needs to be really something. —Pengo 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 i really like this image --Childzy ¤ Talk 20:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)