Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-headed Rock Agama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Red-headed Rock Agama

I found this the other day, i think a version of it has been nominated before, but more work has gone into it, and i really think that it should have been featured before anyway. It is a brilliant photo of an agama, which adds to all of the agama articles immensly.; Currently used on Agama (lizard), Agamidae, and Agaminae, taken by user chris_huh.

• Nominate and support. - Carrotmonster 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment link to previous discussion here -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose all Blown highlights (on snout, back, rock), they simply can't be fixed... --Janke | Talk 06:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good colours. The blown highlights don't really affect the image much at all, since the scales in particular are shiny so it is not so much blown highlights. Compared to other repitle images this is probably the best. Anonymous unsigned vote (86.132.123.212)
• Oppose. Cool lizard, distracting background. -- Moondigger 18:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the background is distracting the viewer from the lizard. --Ineffable3000 02:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blown highlights and distracting background, as others have said. --Tewy 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose edits 1 and 2. The edits do wonders to the distracting background, but there's little that can be done to fix the blown highlights. --Tewy 21:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Kudos to Moondigger's edit (viewed in the thumbnail), but unfortunately if you look at the edges you can tell that work has been done to it. --Tewy 02:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You're absolutely right... I hadn't looked closely enough at the edges, especially the head. I fixed it now -- the edges are much improved. You may have to clear the browser cache to see the updated version, as I overwrote the first one. -- Moondigger 16:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose A little bit of blurring on the background would fix any distraction there for me, and I'm not so convinced those blown highlights are a lost cause. Try fixing it up a bit. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 There ya' go! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1; Neutral on Edit 2; Oppose original. I provided an edited version with a less distracting background, and a second version with even more blur in the background. (Changes to the background are more evident in the full resolution photo than in the thumbnails.) Unfortunately I can't do anything with the blown highlights. I like the edits better but not enough to push my vote to "support." This lizard has "grown on me" over the past couple days enough that I'm supporting Edit 1. -- Moondigger 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Would like to see more documentation on the description page. Presumably Agama agama? I also assume this is a male? (Males lizards often have brightly coloured heads). Can anyone confirm? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 02:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The species is Agama agama and it is a male, the female is a browner colour, although the males can change colour slightly to be less bright it is clear to tell the difference. 84.9.151.53 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 I just realised that this was up for nomination, i don't know if i can add a support vote to it, but i support Edit 1, i think Edit 2 is too blurry, and begins to draw the eye towards the top again. I had myself tried to blur it out a bit before i uploaded it but couldn't get it right, well done Moondigger. chris_huh 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)