Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wild shorbeak echidna02.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wild Shortbeak Echidna[edit]

Version 1. A wild shortbeak echidna, taken in grassland in Swifts Creek, Victoria, Australia
Alternative

OK, I've tried a zoo shot of a shortbeak echidna (which was unpopular to say the least ;-) so here's a geniune authentic wild version. As you can see because it is in "the wild" there is no great photo op locations, and I had to make do with a few in the way stalks of grass. The echidna was making it's way towards a dense cluster of bushes and so I had only about 10 metres of open grass to play with. And to add to all of this he was camera shy and would very quickly duck down into a ball at the sound of the shutter - blurring several photos. However I'm quite happy with this shot and thought it worth nominating.

  • Support Version 1 Self Nom. --Fir0002 09:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Version 2 they are both very nice but I prefer the second. — Arjun 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support version 2 - Much better than the unpopular zoo version... Version 1 has an annoying unfocused branch in the foreground. Alvesgaspar 18:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was my reasoning also, the firs on has too many twigs, branches, etc. — Arjun 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Version 2 Great detail. —dima/s-ko/ 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Version 2, I agree with the others, since the second is less distracting. --RandomOrca2 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Version 2 You might change the file name later... -- Lycaon 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks ;-) --Fir0002 09:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The many pieces of grass in front of the animal spoil it for me, on either version - Adrian Pingstone 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Version 2. Excellent pic. Clear detail and no artefacts. Though the piece of grass or whatever that is is a bit distracting. -mw 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Version 2 per Alvesgaspar. SD31415 · SIGN HERE 00:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1st one The big branch in the second one is just as distracting as all the little one in the first version. It's a good photo though and I really like the angle.--Why1991 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Version 2 It's better than the first one (due to the position of the face) and it highly encyclopedic.S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that beast lives in thre grasslands the few grass blades don't bother me. I actually prefer version 1, as I think the beak comes out better in the half-profile. --Dschwen 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The echidna lives in grassland, forest and sand dunes, so it doesn't exclusively inhabit grassland. --liquidGhoul 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support version 2 I think the grass is less distracting in this one. They do have very odd fur though. Terri G 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Both I like them both and I don't find the grass overly distracting. I agree with Dschwen; the beak comes out better. --Iriseyes 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both per above. Sweet. - Darwinek 13:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Both Per above. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Version 2. The quality is great and it also illustrates it's habitat. As for which version, much more is visible and in focus on version 2. NauticaShades 11:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wild shortbeak echidna.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Wild_shorbeak_echidna02.jpg&oldid=1057752349"