Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Australopithèque Cerveau Double.jpg

File:Australopithèque Cerveau Double.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 21:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Australopithèque Cerveau Double.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Australopithèque Cerveau Double.jpg

•  Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Very interesting and valuable specimen. High technical quality. --Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support An encyclopedic value! --Citron (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Quality and teaching. Maybe unique. Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent ! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Ggia (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent --Pjt56 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support No need of my support, but very good and rare picture, indeed !--Jebulon (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose DOF lacks on a lot of parts, also the heads are a bit noisy. I think there are some better views and pictures of Archaeodontosaurus, too. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment He mights say this himself much better than me, but please notice that this picture is not entirely from the hand of Archeodontosaurus (see the file description page). In my opinion, this picture is featurable not because of his technical qualities (not the best, ok, but not the worst), but for what it shows. I had never seen until today the brain, (even fossilized !), of an Australopithecus. This high encyclopedic value justifies a FP promotion in "Commons", IMO. --Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral technical quality could be way better. this item is not endangered to urgent destruction nor does it show a historic singularity which could not be photographed again - therefore a better (meaning technical more advanced) version could be created. its shortcomings in DOF, sharpness and focus are severe, so no support from my side (as if this would matter). regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment When we made friendship let us take pictures of these specimens it was very difficult to ask, in addition, we can set up a studio. So far the articles on early hominids were illustrated with casts of poor quality. We must encourage scientists to come to Common, and not to look too closely at their weakness in photographic technique. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--shizhao (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Great educational work. Steven Walling 06:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support. --Спас Колев (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality should be much better for a studio shot. Sorry, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Info This is not a photograph taken in the studio. This piece and others we have been able to come up with the picture taken, but we did and neither flash nor tripod or a good light. But it remains an exceptional photography, because it does not access easily holotypes! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Very high encyclopaedic value, good enough quality. But I refuse to accept this "Toothsy" as my ancestor! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects