Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Florida Box Turtle

Box Turtle

 * Reason:High technical standard and resolution, informative, and encyclopedic.
 * Articles this image appears in:Box turtle, Terrapene carolina, Terrapene
 * Creator:Digon3


 * Support as nominator ----Digon3 talk 16:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Excellent shot of the animal. What is the argument for the clinical setting?  Normally WP promotes images of wildlife against a natural background.  I could keep an open mind here due to the quality of the shot.  Please talk me into it.  Durova Charge! 18:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has other FP with a removed background     and others. You can see the original background here. I think it focuses attention on the subject and this way nothing is obstructed by the background (e.g. grass or mud, like ), which makes it more encyclopedic and easier to see. --Digon3 talk 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree this is definitely an improvement over the original. Support.  Good examples.  Durova Charge! 20:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. duh :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. A great illustration. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as Mostlyharmless. Muhammad (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of shallow DOF. How come we demand full DOF for more difficult macro subjects, but not for a photo like this? --Janke | Talk 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose I just do not like (to say the least) animals photographed at a white background and not in their natural habitat. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet you had no problems with the ones mentioned above. As for the turtle in its natural habitat, where I photographed the turtle is where I found it. --Digon3 talk 23:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not recall supporting any one of your samples. I did not oppose them because I was not around at the time of their nominations. I've never opposed your image, when you nominatedit on Commons only because I knew it will fail anyway.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I would definitely prefer a natural background as well. On a side note, if there is no background, why isn't the picture cropped more tightly? Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Just because the original is worse doesn't mean this should be a FP. No, instead I'd like to see this with a natural habitat background and/or more DoF (f/7.1 is a too shallow for this subject, f/11 would have been better.).  (BTW, just because an animal can be found in a given man-made location doesn't mean we shouldn't prefer one in its native environment.) -- RM 21:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I find this image a perfect example of what we should have as FP on animals. This is an image on Box Turtle and it is showing just that, Box Turtle without distracting elements.--Avala (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nonetheless it would be nice to have a ruler drawing on the side for orientation regarding the size of this turtle.--Avala (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support It being isolated is no problem for me, takes away from distractions. Good, sharp, high rez pic. Clegs (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Good angle --Base64 (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - FP has a place for both types of shots, ones with backgrounds and ones without, even of the same subject. There is no reason that these need to to be seen as competing aesthetics. pschemp | talk 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)