Support as nominator --Erik9 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not very sharp, JPG compression artifacts, overexposed/sun-bleached in the centre. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per VanderdeckenSeddσntalk 02:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – poor lighting and quite heavy compression artifacts, EV is its only redeeming feature and that much is compromised by the posed figures. We don't feature zoo animals unless they're particularly hard to photograph, and this particular breed are very easy to capture in a more natural setting... it's some dude's holiday snap, fer chrissakes. --mikaultalk 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- not everyone may want to see nudity portrayed on the main page... Lilaac (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given the uploader's slight lack of other contributions almost certianly a copyvio.Geni 14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:AGF, we generally presume that uploaders who have asserted that images are their own work have done so honestly unless proven otherwise, either with respect to the specific photograph or other uploads by the same editor, unless the claim is so implausible on its face as to require additional supporting evidence. We do not require that people who wish to release their own photographic work under a free license make additional contributions to prove the rectitude of their intentions, nor would doing so be advisable for a volunteer project. Erik9 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image doesn't have any metadata, is the uploader's only upload and depicts nudity. My experence is that such images are pretty much always a copyvio.Geni 09:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
