Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Capivara(Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).jpg

File:Capivara(Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 17:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Capivara(Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Capivara(Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
•  Info created and uploaded by Clodomiro Esteves Junior - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 18:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very good composition but too noisy IMO--Ermell (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Noise is acceptable and the image is really good. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• weak  Support a bit noisy and top crop could be improved --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent capture. Noise is not a big thing here and I think this is the perfect example of mitigating reasons. --Code (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per others - the capybaras aren't too noisy. I admit to a bit of bias, in that I had pet guinea pigs as a child, so I like rodents, especially cute ones. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Really a very nice composition and HEV. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
•  weak oppose Per Ermell. --Hockei (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I agree, it's a bit noisy, but you cannot find such an scene in your garden posing for you. Great composition and acceptable quality for a 500 mm shot. Poco² 12:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ermell.--Peulle (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose sharpness and noise. Charles (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Regretful oppose due to noise. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support The scene compensates the noise for me - but some denoising would be good --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Huge wow / cute factor. Noise doesn't detract at all IMO. - Benh (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per others. Not sure it is reasonable to expect a sharper image at 500mm with consumer gear. -- Colin (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support How frigging cute is that?!! It's one of those shots us wildlife photogs dream about!! Atsme 📞 16:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing scene. -- Pofka (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals