Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Phelsuma dubia.jpg

Phelsuma dubia

 * Reason:Reptilian FPs are few and lizards seem to be doing well so here's another one. The only picture in its article. Previous image in article was of lower quality and probably misidentified( or juvenile)
 * Articles in which this image appears:Dull day gecko, Reptile (Under camouflage in defense)
 * Creator:Muhammad Mahdi Karim


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Blurring on tail and distracting background (white bits) - I thought I was viewing some form of optical illusion picture until I read the details as I just didn't see the animal... Still support though as once you know what ur looking for it is a good picture of an animal I had never seen so good ev... Gazhiley (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Composition is interesting and eye catching. It's the sort of composition that you tend to see in wildlife photography competitions. Shame you didn't get it more straight-on, so that everything was in focus. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think this is slightly but significantly below our standards, and if it were from any photographer that isn't an FPC regular, we almost certainly wouldn't promote it. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose . Sorry. I love the picture, I just don't think it's really FPC material because of the distracting background. I, too, didn't actually realise I was looking at a lizard for a few seconds. J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the lizard is difficult to see at first but I think it's more camouflage in the setting than the background --Muhammad (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try defocussing your eyes and looking at the thumbnail- you see a series of white triangles. They look like the focus of the picture. This feels much more BBC than Wikipedia- I suppose that's a compliment, but I'm not certain it's something we should be featuring. However, I realise how inconsistent that sounds, so consider my oppose withdrawn. I am neutral. J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Prefer edit slightly EV-wise, but still neutral, as I am not certain I can assess this properly. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of the very light triangles. Camouflage per se is not bad. If the whole photo were occupied by a lizard-colored tree trunk or something like that, that would be fine. But here, the eyes are drawn to the triangles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support I absolutely love the image!--Mbz1 (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit1 uploaded I recovered the sky colour from the white triangles. I hope the blue triangles are not distracting. --Muhammad (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The composition is beautiful and I would gladly support the picture in Commons FP. But here we should restrict focus our assessment on EV, and the light, sharpness and angle are not the best -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din \talk 12:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)