Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern grey kangaroo feeding dec07.jpg

Eastern Grey Kangroo

 * Reason:Unlike my previous FPC of a wild kangaroo this was taken in deep bush and so doesn't have any issues of man made structures in the background. High quality image of an iconic Australian animal.
 * Articles this image appears in:Kangaroo, Eastern Grey Kangaroo, Macropus
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 03:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - While I like the shot, compared to this image we cannot see significant parts of the animal. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Undecided although I think Alt 1 is best for the article. Nicer sky and I'm not sure if a bit of grass in its mouth adds much to EV. :-) Good image, but I do agree that it's an unfortunate angle in that you're looking up at the animal and its feet are obscured. As an aside (not that I'm considering it as a FP by any means), since we're talking kangaroos, I just got around to uploading a decent image of an adult and joey here. I'm thinking it could be added to the article but probably to remove one of the existing ones - perhaps the first one in the gallery of the Joey. Your opinion? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest I actually prefer the existing Joey shot as it seems to have a better background and lighting. Possibly this one could be replaced instead... ? --Fir0002 11:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't sure. I do think the existing Joey shot is quite obscured by grass and the detail is somewhat difficult to make out though, but definitely the lighting is better. The one you mentioned is clearly poorer quality and soft but at first glance I thought it best to leave that one as it seemed to be the only male kangaroo in the article, but your FPC here is a male too, isn't it? I'm not an expert at picking out their bits. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think this one is a male but not 100% sure :) --Fir0002 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is. 100% Benjamint 10:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1. The only unobstructed view of the animal's midsection and the best color contrast of the three.  (I wouldn't object to promoting the original for the reasons given below).  Durova Charge! 17:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Original for use in Kangaroo where it adds value to the section on diet. If the image is taken as describing a kangaroo feeding rather than just a kangaroo I think portion of the animal shown is acceptable.
 * Oppose alts, would not add as much value to the article as they do not show the food in mouth or jaw motion. Guest9999 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1 Best lighting out of the lot, and I prefer the background. Elucidate ( light up ) 19:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1 I am not big on technical terms but all I can say is great photo with the best lighting compared with the other two. I also like the other versions and support them as well. I think the Kangaroo in Alt 2 is probably the clearest.        Adam (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1 It seems to be the best one. Good composition. A302b (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative 1. We see the most of the kangaroo in the first alt, and the grass and branches provide a nice visual frame. Nautica Shad es  14:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Original, Alt 1 Both have substantial EV, just in different places. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either Original or Alt 1, but prefer Original. The background is not as nice, but the facial expression is great.--ragesoss (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

--Muhammad (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)