Talk:Cuvier's dwarf caiman

Lead image swap & then move
I've moved the previous lead image (here) to #Description and added a relevant caption. @, : I recognize that I used a justification for reversion along the lines of the previous image's species characteristics, so I can't fault that being used for a different one… but I do want to point out that the new lead image (here) is of lesser quality. And neither reasoning may be helpful to readers, as the lead doesn't discuss description detail beyond size.

Both the new image and the image I've just swapped out of #Behavior and ecology—File:Dwarf Caiman in Paignton Zoo.jpg—might be more appropriate in #Description than the head, as scutes are discussed quite extensively for identification purposes. If that characteristic was demonstrated with an image in #Description, a higher quality image could be used as the lead. The only other one on commons of nice quality that still shows the species well is this one I think, by the same author as the head close up but zoomed out: File:Paleosuchus palpebrosus Prague 2011 3.jpg. I can also do an off-commons search if anyone agrees with this endeavor. – Rhinopias (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't much care for the new lead image and would prefer to use the zoomed out file (Prague 2011 3) you suggest above. By all means search online for other image possibilities if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm up for a new main image, if there's a better one. I just find that simple head-shots aren't terribly informative.  The best case would be a whole-body shot of an adult with something else in view that gives an idea of scale. HCA (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There aren't any good full shots on Commons (with the exception of File:Dwarf Caiman in Paignton Zoo.jpg, which is too far out), and practically none appropriately licensed on Flickr. File:Dwarf Caiman white background.jpg, a derivative of the image just mentioned, is nice but also doesn't look great in the infobox.
 * Would you agree with File:Paleosuchus palpebrosus Prague 2011 3.jpg being used in the infobox (it's more than just a head shot but similar), and either that derivative one above or a crop of File:Paleosuchus palpebrosus Trachemys scripta elegans.jpg used in #Description to demonstrate rows of osteoderms? I understand that showing more of the species is preferable in the first instance, but I'm not grasping the justification of using a low-res and poorly cropped image as representative of the article/species when a good image exists. As long as a full body shot is present in the article, it allows the reader to more easily understand #Description if they choose to examine the topic further. – Rhinopias (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would really not like to use File:Paleosuchus palpebrosus Prague 2011 3.jpg at all, because I'm not 100% sure it isn't P. trigonatus and the snout shape due to viewing angle. It probably is, but I'm only maybe 75% sure that it's P. palpebrosus, which isn't great for a taxobox image.  These two species are *very* similar and there are a TON of misidentified photos of them online - I've even seen the wrong names being used when they're being sold in the pet trade. HCA (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've contacted the author of the three related image on Commons at commons:User talk:Karelj and they said that one of the originals (second photo at File:Paleosuchus palpebrosus Prague 2011 2.jpg) has the museum's label in it prior to being cropped. Their statement of the animal looking the same as others in the category isn't helpful for this discussion, obviously, but the exhibit is unlikely to include both species of Paleosuchus.. – Rhinopias (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, go for it. I just wanted to be 100% sure. HCA (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

OK – how's that? I used the derivative one (File:Dwarf Caiman white background.jpg) in place of File:Paleosuchus palpebrosus - Flickr - Dick Culbert.jpg in #Description and blew it up. I think it looks sort of funny on my screen, but with the paragraph being at the end of the section (and the cladogram) I think a left-aligned thumbnail looks worse. – Rhinopias (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, thanks! HCA (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice table! – Rhinopias (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thanks for tracking down good photos! HCA (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)