Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Macropus giganteus Male.jpg

Eastern Grey Kangaroo

 * Reason:Minimal obscuration is a selling point.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Eastern Grey Kangaroo
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Feet cut off, but other than that fine... Gazhiley (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The rubbish(?) in the background detracts a bit and it would be the work of a moment to remove. Benjamint 09:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mortar from an old convict building on Maria Island. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it removable though? Gazhiley (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure someone could clone it out. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Best get in touch with the Clone Army for that task... Gazhiley (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. The head actually looks slightly motion blurred to me. It's a good shot, but very reproducible and given we already have a couple of featured pictures of Kangaroos, I think the bar is necessarily high. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of fir's, for which a lot is missing. Are there others? Noodle snacks (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually thought Fir had two, but one of the ones he nominated apparently didn't pass, so I guess we have just one. It's still just not quite there for me though. You may have more opportunities to perfect the kangaroo portrait on the mainland soon. :-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support per the relatively good composition, interesting facial expression and very poetic background, but not convinced with its educational value--Caspian blue 15:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Why are there vertical streaks in the background? Was it raining? -- Zoo Fari  20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * weak oppose Conditional Oppose Although all oppose votes are supposed to be conditional this one is conditioned to the success of the delist nomination Sparrow (female in Australia) (and the closer can dismiss the oppose if that nomination is not successful). The reasons given there applies here too. The subject is not clearly distinguished from the background.  franklin   21:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is a valid reason to make it conditional. You should be judging this image on its own merits, not based on the success or failure of any other unrelated nomination. An exception to that rule might be a delist and replace nomination, but this is not one of those. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, it might be in my best interests to sway that nomination in my favour. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. It makes sense.  franklin   22:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not sure I like the composition and the branch in the foreground is distracting to me. — raeky ( talk 12:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough for me. -- Zoo Fari  17:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Diliff. Very good pose, but lacking a bit of contrast. Local "heritage" in the background distracting Elekhh (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lack of contrast.-- mcshadypl T C  01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lack of contrast? Do you propose the background or foreground to be brighter? -- Zoo Fari  01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unfortunately some blurred branches obscure its feet and lower legs. Snowman (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Our existing FP of the subject obscures even more of the feet, gives the impression that there is no tail, has some distracting twigs in front of the forepaws, is very dark on the left side of the head, and has less resolution than this one. If this were a delist and replace, this one would be a winner.   Mae din \talk 22:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)