Commons:Featured media candidates/File:02-Grey Squirrel 2021-09-13 nX2.webm
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:02-Grey Squirrel 2021-09-13 nX2.webm, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2021 at 17:29:49
File location
- Description : Grey Squirrel Foraging
- Gallery: Commons:Featured media/Animals
- Info created by PsamatheM - uploaded to commons by PsamatheM - nominated by PsamatheM -- PsamatheM (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- PsamatheM (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 22:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
OpposeWhile our considerations should chiefly be about the media, we are also allowed to consider the description page and licensing information in evaluating featured media candidates, by analogy to the featured picture process. My primary issue with this media is the User:PsamatheM/PermissionsV1 template used on the file description page, which has the potential effect of scaring away reusers and/or getting them to contact the author for different (non-free) license terms. As discussed at m:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media, third-party uploads of freely licensed content to social media platforms is not a violation of the Creative Commons licenses, so this template is factually incorrect. I believe that the presence of misleading information on the description page is disqualifying and therefore oppose this media's candidacy. Mysterymanblue 01:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Mysterymanblue: . If the template is wrong I will fix it. I took the template from one used by many other active contributors (via their QI submissions) - initial checks suggest the advice/legal page linked to have changed and stance on social media changed (and my info not been updated to reflect updated advice); but I will investigate and correct if it wrong. PsamatheM (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Mysterymanblue: . Looks like the legal guidance page change some time 2019/2020 so I have removed that section from my permissions (which will update on all my contributions to Commons). Many thanks for pointing this out. PsamatheM (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi PsamatheM, thank you very much for addressing my concerns! I will change my vote to support because this media is of a high quality. Mysterymanblue 10:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support - high quality, illustrative media. Mysterymanblue 10:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support FM for me -- Karelj (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Eatcha (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Looks like it'll pass regardless, but while it's a stable video with good light and sharpness, for one of the most ubiquitous and easily recorded animals in its range, I'd expect more for a squirrel video. That "more" could be it exhibiting a particular behavior like a vocalization, preening, cracking open a large nut, etc. -- something specific to edit around -- or otherwise if doing its usual foraging like this, IMO the framing should be either a little tighter to be a close-up or a little wider to avoid cutting off little pieces. Perhaps just a matter of preference, hence "weak" oppose. Also may want to check the wb, which seems a bit on the green side. — Rhododendrites talk | 15:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This media will be added to the FM gallery: Animals
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This media will be added to the FM gallery: Animals