Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:White lipped tree frog cairns jan 8 2006.jpg 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

White-lipped Tree Frog[edit]

What are you lookin' at??

This image of a White-lipped Tree Frog was nominated once before but failed, mostly due to its size. A larger size was uploaded but it was too late. Thus, I am re-nominating it now.

  • Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great quality, great encyclopedic value, very encyclopedic caption, too. NauticaShades 17:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I know it's the archive, but just have to apologise for not looking at 100%. I always do but I thought this one was fine since it was very close to being nominated last time. NauticaShades 07:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the informative caption and the frog's expression are lovely, the image is very noisy and blurred. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Opposse. The thumbnail is very nice, however, the image is technically problematic at 100%. Color noise, shallow depth of field puts the nose out of focus, the image isn't that sharp to begin with.--Andrew c 20:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. That was pretty lame of me. This has no chance in hell of making it to FP status. howcheng {chat} 22:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on yourself. It is a very stunning image at smaller sizes. Some people are more picky than others when it comes to detail at 100%. It is my understanding that for FP, that sort of thing does matter, but if it didn't, I would have supported this image myself.--Andrew c 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The point being that I've been doing this for a little while, I should have known better. Wasn't thinking on this one -- it was so close to being promoted the last time around that I just assumed the full-size version was fine when in fact it's just too blurry and noisy. For some reason viewing the full-size images at my office is ridiculously slow, so I didn't bother with examining it until after I read the above comments. howcheng {chat} 03:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)