Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gecko Revision
A high-res, clear shot of a green gecko Carolina Anole for the gecko article.
Support Self Nom - Replacing old Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gecko. drumguy8800 - speak? 01:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)- Support-puts the GEICO gecko to shame. --ZeWrestler Talk 01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - The tail is cut, plus three dead pixels in the upper part of the pic. — Pixel8 06:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Three "dead pixels" removed. Unfortunately if I had included the tail, it would've been a giant blur. The quality of the actual lizard is high because I'm using a high F-Stop.. making the depth-of-field large enough to focus on a curving tail & the lizard would've resulted in an image of much lower quality. drumguy8800 - speak? 13:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'd consider supporting a version with the tail included, even if it is out of focus due to shallow DOF. Not the current version with the tail chopped off though. 84.9.223.82
- Neutral very nearly FPC quality, but the upper back is blurred -- looks like he moved during the exposure. chowells 14:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Close, but no cigar... (that actually means oppose ;-) I miss some tail, too. --Janke | Talk 21:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Good sharpness. Very clear picture. Andrew18 @ 23:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. I want more tail too. enochlau (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- ( + ) Support But I'd like one with the tail --Fir0002 05:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Appears to be a Green (Carolina) Anole, in a different family, not a Gecko at all. It is a nice picture, but falls short of exceptional in several aspects: lacking depth of field (too much of subject is unfocused), composition (the missing tail unbalances the shot), and the green spots on the white chin are a bit washed out. I judge the photo currently illustrating the Carolina Anole article to be a better FPC, as it is exceptional in high-res. BCool 04:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose. You are right, I removed this pic in the gecko article, where it was just recently inserted by the photographer, and put back the old (real) gecko image. As of now the nominated pic is not used in any article. I did not add it to the Carolina Anole article since it already resembles a gallery. Hence oppose.--Dschwen 09:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction, but I really don't see reasoning *not* to put it in the Carolina Anole article. It's still large and illustrative, and even if there are minor flaws to get all pissy about in an FPC debate, it's still a nice image. Putting it in the gallery. drumguy8800 - speak? 14:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- All pissy? Anyway, at least it's in the correct article now. But this somehow shows a bigger problem with FPC. I've just seen it too often recently that people upload a new picture, slam it into whatever article it might fit, and nomitate it for FPC. The quality of nominations would benefit if those pictures would spend a little time in the articles and get a chance to be peer reviewed by article contributors. Whats the big deal about Featured Picture status anyway that some people want to bag FPs by the dozen? The focus should lie on illustrating the articles with the best pictures possible. --Dschwen 16:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with Dschwen above. FPC is not a photo competition. --Janke | Talk 07:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- All pissy? Anyway, at least it's in the correct article now. But this somehow shows a bigger problem with FPC. I've just seen it too often recently that people upload a new picture, slam it into whatever article it might fit, and nomitate it for FPC. The quality of nominations would benefit if those pictures would spend a little time in the articles and get a chance to be peer reviewed by article contributors. Whats the big deal about Featured Picture status anyway that some people want to bag FPs by the dozen? The focus should lie on illustrating the articles with the best pictures possible. --Dschwen 16:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction, but I really don't see reasoning *not* to put it in the Carolina Anole article. It's still large and illustrative, and even if there are minor flaws to get all pissy about in an FPC debate, it's still a nice image. Putting it in the gallery. drumguy8800 - speak? 14:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. The in-focus leaves in the foreground on the right are distracting. deeptrivia (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Great image! Lejean2000 10:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ineligible for FP status as others have mentioned (it is not in an article). Try submitting it to commons. BrokenSegue 00:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support if it's in an article, also the the forground leaves should be bluredWolfmankurd 23:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)