Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red headed Rock Agama

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

Red headed Rock Agama[edit]

File:Red-headed Rock Agama.JPG
Red-headed Rock Agama warming itself in the morning sun on a cliff face overlooking Nakuru National Park, Kenya. (August 2005)
File:Red-headed Rock Agama( without blow highlights).JPG
Red-headed Rock Agama warming itself in the morning sun on a cliff face overlooking Nakuru National Park, Kenya. (August 2005)[edit 1attempted to fix blown highlights]
Edit by Fir0002

I saw this picture from Chris huh, and thought it look brilliant. So I nomiated it. I just love the vivid colours. It adds a LOT to the otherwise very dull article. Hope he doesnt mind :D

  • Nominate and support. - Wolfmankurd 14:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose (weak - see below). Overexposed (blown highlights), somewhat messy background. --Janke | Talk 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I could be able to fix that. Would that help? I think I should get the permisiion fist though. Wolfmankurd 18:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Blown highlights. If this gets fixed, change my vote to Support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Did my best the it got quite dark in the process, Wolfmankurd 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'm not sure that that's the "best" that we can manage... anyone wanna give it another shot? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You know, the highlights are still blown - but instead of being white, they're now an uniform medium gray - no detail whatsoever in the now darker "highligts". --Janke | Talk 06:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- even in Fir's otherwise good edit, there are no details in the blown-out tip of the snout and the neck. What is lost in the original, can't be brought back by any edit. Changing to weak oppose, though. --Janke | Talk 13:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think the picture is particularly stunning at all and I don't really like the background 07:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose both original and edit. Edit is particularly bad. Too underexposed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:21, 1 June 2006
  • Support edit 2. A bit smaller than I would like, but this image is encyclopedic, and that lizard is really cute! --Pharaoh Hound 12:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I support the Fir edit - Adrian Pingstone 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fir's edit. --BRIAN0918 21:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fir's edit. Olegivvit 09:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Distracting background. --Windsok 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fir's edit. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fir's edit. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 17:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fir's edit.--ragesoss 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fir's edit.--Tnarg 12345 03:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fir's edit. Great colors. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 04:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I changed my mind after reading some of the other comments. The distracting background and highlights are not good enough to make this lizzard featured. Janderk 07:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose original and edits Cool lizard, Fir good job on your edit, however the image itself just doesn't work for me. I agree with Janke. --Mad Max 05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cool lizard. Distracting background. -- moondigger 18:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose agreed with moondigger. --Life is like a box of chocolates 19:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Fir's edit is obviously supported to supplant the original in articles, but still only 10/8 so not promoted to FP ~ VeledanTalk 10:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)