Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Monkey eating.jpg

Crab-eating Macaque edit

Original - A Crab-eating Macaque (Macaca fascicularis) monkey eating peanuts. Pictured in Bangalore, India

Reason: My first picture from India. Good quality, EV and wow. Pretty interesting as well. Could replace the current taxobox image in monkey, but I will leave that to you guys.
Articles this image appears in: Macaque, Crab-eating Macaque, Covance, ~~Macular degeneration~~, Primate
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 09:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not commenting on this image yet, but I'd suggest not to put it in the taxobox of monkey - that should be a full body shot (the existing image there isn't ideal either as it shows no tail). --jjron (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Good quality, but I think you may have picked an unfortunate specimen. It's got something seriously wrong with its right eye, and peculiar swellings on its jaw (they're too low to be the peanuts in its mouth). You don't have any photos of a healthy specimen do you? --jjron (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nominated the image at commons as well and one user who seems knowledgeable about primates said, "A wonderful image of the crab eating macaque. Visible full cheek pouches and that typical alert expression that macaques have. The eye problem is probably macular degeneration, a retinal defect that usually effects adults" --Muhammad(talk) 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'm pretty sure the swelling is peanuts as almost all the monkeys had them and they seemed to appear only after the monkeys started eating. --Muhammad(talk) 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right about the "swelling". Interesting xample of primate foraging behaviour. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That may be correct about the 'cheek pouches'. It would certainly be impossible in a human and monkeys are fairly closely related, but there would be sufficient diversion for that to have evolved. Having said which I would be interested in seeing a good photo of a non-feeding one to see if the associated skin discolouration etc was visible (may have a look around on the net when I've got more time). Regardless, I'd still say the eye makes this less than ideal as a lead image in the monkey articles (and all this should be noted on the image page/captions). --jjron (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - On further research the cheek pouches are legit, though couldn't find anywhere that actually gave any detail on size, etc, they just said they existed. So that's actually a plus for EV, though a bit counterbalanced by it not being mentioned in the article, and possibly by the fact it's eating peanuts (couldn't find anywhere that listed these as a natural part of its diet). BTW this has been reverted in Crab-eating Macaque. --jjron (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wonder why reverted. This image certainly has better EV compared to that cut off mugshot. If the eye problem, "usually affects the adults" then an image showing the condition would have EV --Muhammad(talk) 02:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Edit summary was a simple 'i prefer the previous image'. Macular degeneration is also a problem for (mainly older) humans, and I would assume the same for other animals, it's not a disease just of these monkeys - it's just the body is more likely to degenerate as it ages. Unfortunately the other images I found from the right angle were not great quality, so couldn't really make much comparison to the cheeks not being stuffed with food (don't guess you got any...). --jjron (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have a picture of another monkey with stuffed cheeks. FWIW, the image now appears in Macular degeneration and Primate where you may find the EV to be stronger per your concerns. --Muhammad(talk) 08:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not anymore, someone seems to disagree --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps this would be a suitable illustration for macular degeneration? J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I have added it to that article as well. --Muhammad(talk) 02:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well im gonna support, nothing wrong with the photo, it is very good and i think the monkeys defects may make the picture more useful if it is put in articles like the one suggested above --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral High quality photo. This species was common and easy to photograph in Malaysia when I was there, so I feel justified in being a little fussy. The other common name is the "Long-tailed Macaque" hence I think we are missing out without the tail in the shot. The face swelling etc is interesting though. Seems like Macular degeneration might not be the right term for what is going on with the eye. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have another with the tail but the close-up features associated with this such as the face swelling are not as evident. Can't there be room for both? After all we have many portraits of animals including one of a Giraffe which does not show the long legs ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 09:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd add one with the tail regardless, there isn't a picture with the whole monkey in the article at the moment. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I need to stitch it. Will upload as soon as its done. In the meantime, no change of opinion on this one? --Muhammad(talk) 13:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image has been removed from macular degeneration by an IP claiming that symptoms do not appear on the exterior of the eye. A quick skim of the article and symptoms does seem to confirm this. Though I am by no means an ophthalmologist. wadester 16 15:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither am I, I added it to the article after learning about it from the commons nomination. --Muhammad(talk) 16:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which can be the problem when non-experts try to guess at things to 'increase' EV. It's also why giving medical advice isn't allowed at the reference desk. --jjron (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but I don't see how that applies here. I didn't guess about anything, merely quoted from a user who seems well versed with primates. And this too was not done to increase the EV. --Muhammad(talk) 08:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Was a general comment about guesswork, which we sometimes see a bit too much of. And as I read it the Commons user basically admitted they were guessing too. --jjron (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Good quality! its Bonnet Macaque --Cj.samson (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I like the lighting but overall it comes across as half hearted in terms of composition. Should have been a full body shot of a healthy specimen to illustrate the species (either that or a closer up portrait shot). To illustrate whatever disease it has in the eyes it should also have been a much tighter crop (preferably just the head). They seem fairly tame and so a reshoot should be relatively easy --Fir0002 12:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per jjron and fir. wadester 16 13:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per above. Time3000 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting in the eyes, and I can't clearly see what it's holding in its hand, possibly due to noise reduction that seems to be evident on the more distant lower arm. The noise reduction itself isn't doing any favours either imo. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 198 FCs served} 12:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]