Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fraternal twins

Fraternal twins edit

Fraternal twins, girl (l) and boy (r) at two weeks old.

Edit. Cropped and colors adjusted.

Reason: High res image, subjects not cut off, pleasing color scheme, illustrates the concept of fraternal twins nicely. On the whole, very cute.
Articles this image appears in: Twin
Creator: user:MultipleParent

Support as nominator — MultipleParent 14:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose May be cute, but the lighting (flash) and the composition are turn-offs. No "wow" factor, unfortunately, just a snapshot. Try bounce flash, or shooting outside in cloudy weather, for better lighting. --Janke | Talk 16:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly there's nothing particularly impressive about this picture. There are many more of much better quality and clarity, and is this picture (if you don't mind me asking) realy special enough to be featured? Matt. P 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The image doesn't really illustrate the concept well. Why isn't there any images of identical twins in the twins article? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great details, very clear image.--Mbz1 | Talk
Comment I'm somewhat mixed on it. It's pretty grey though, so I've uploaded a cropped version with the colors intensified some. ShadowHalo 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Nice bright colors, kind of ordinary. Maddiekate 03:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have to say it was an extraordinarily fortuitous shot. It's not like I directed my babies to look cute, you know? MultipleParent 03:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha, yes they are cute.
Oppose. Cute, but not encyclopedic. If, perhaps, they were naked, and we could see them from head to toe (so that the similarity but not-quite-identicality of the fraternal twins could be compared), and the lighting was better, and the background was more neutral, then... maybe. Spikebrennan 13:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cute, and a useful contribution to Wikipedia. But not quite encyclopaedic enough, nor is the composition strong enough to warrant being featured. Stevage 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]