Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Odd-eyed cat

An odd-eyed cat edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2010 at 14:04:42 (UTC)

The most common cases of complete heterochromia in house cats are one odd eye, the blue eye, with one normal eye.

Reason: High technical standard. Also, high encyclopedic value.
Articles in which this image appears: Heterochromia, Odd-eyed cat
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Keith Kissel

Support as nominator --Gut Monk (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the picture (my cat has both blue eyes and is stone deaf), but I don't like the caption, it shouldn't say "rumored to be" since that is mostly WP:OR. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated the caption. Gut Monk (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think I'd ever be supporting a cat-image. But this one is absolutely marvelous. Love the composition, overall colors of the scene which accentuate and support the eyes. Light is very good, depth of field is well chosen. Good resolution. Nice candidate. --Dschwen 16:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dschwen... Never thought there's be an article on odd-eyed cats - you learn something new every day! Gazhiley (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing! Very interesting subject and a fantastic picture to match. Strong support. -- Jack?! 03:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. I wasn't wild about the setting (on a bed? Blankets?) but I do feel this is a suitable picture for the subject matter. The quality is very high. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The background may only be a bed with blankets, but that's the usual location of a house cat. I see no problem with the background, it's not distracting or anything. -- Jack?! 21:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC) (I've moved this down as I assume it was meant as a response to J Milburn as didn't make sense in it's original placing below your above comment Gazhiley (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, hence the full support. However, after some further consideration, I'm gonna make it a weak support. A shot like this is very reproducible, and, though this is good, it's not mind-blowing. I don't rate the foreground fabric. J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice and rare, very good -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I might be a shag on a rock here, and the photo as such is OK, but I'm not liking the homely background for an encyclopaedia. Also technicals aren't particularly great - quite heavy noise and a fair bit of artifacting, not so much on the face, but everywhere else. Only in a gallery in the key article Heterochromia, and I can't help but wonder whether the Odd-eyed cat article should be merged into that one (and seems I'm not the only one). --jjron (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First, a public apology to anyone I offened. I sleep walk, and its becoming problem. If I offend you, then I'm sorry. It's because I've spent too much time on Wikipedia and I"m dreaming about it. However, if you need your car door opened, or your slices of bread torn into tiny pieces, then please let me know—I'm an expert on the matter.

Jjron, I disagree. The creator has, I presume, put blue and green blankets behind the cat for a reason. You call it a homely a background, but I'm with Dschwen on this subject—it is part of the composition.

Speaking to topic of FP, I'm wholly opposed. Did you know that heterochromia could happen? If so, how old were you? I have complete heterochromia, and my classmates were amazed by it.

Speaking to the topic of merging articles, I'm on the fence. Yeah...but...I suggest this article. Gut Monk (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree to disagree perhaps. I'm certainly not opposing an FP on this topic, if you think I'm suggesting that, just that I don't think this is it. In reply to your question, yes I did know heterochromia existed, and have seen it in real life, including on neighbourhood cats. I don't believe it's that rare, and the number of images in Commons:Category:Odd-eyed cats would seem to testify to that. How old was I? Well I can't remember sorry, I'm an old man... --jjron (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm with Jjron on this one. Cute picture but nothing extraordinary justifying FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no way for this phenomenon to be better illustated. Cowtowner (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Messy composition, lousy lighting, just average technicals in general, very snapshot-y. A good shot, sure, but given the ease of re-shooting this, it's fair to set a higher standard. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the lighting "lousy"? --Dschwen 02:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, "lousy" was the wrong word, but the lighting definitely is inadequate. The two sides of the cat's face are unevenly lit. Not a huge problem but, along with the others, it contributes to the image falling short of being FP quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still don't get how flat lighting is supposed to be better on a white cat. The directional light sculpts the head and helps to give it a sense of depth (just look at the ridge between the brows). The shadows are nicely filled with ambient light. The composition does not look messy to me at all, the depth of field separated the cat from the background, whose color palette could not be chosen better. The focus is spot-on on the eyes, and the small amount of noise in the background is neither distracting nor obscuring any details. As for another reviewer disliking the homely background... those cats are domesticated! This is their natural habitat. --Dschwen 14:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weakly, the EV is pretty good and even though the composition isn't amazing in my opinion I still think this meets the criteria. Cat-five - talk 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great picture, and we need all the cat-related featured content we can get. The main page is notoriously biased against cats. Ceiling Cat (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, the old systemic bias against cats. ;-) --jjron (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good quality and nice resolution. Good picture. BINOY ^Talk 14:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:June_odd-eyed-cat.jpg —Maedin\^talk 22:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]