Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hidden frog

Frog hidden in a clutter of dead leaves
Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2010 at 13:14:01 (UTC)
 * Reason:A very high-resolution image. Aesthetic value is so-so unless you like dead leaves, but educational value is quite high as a stunning example of crypsis. Honestly, I couldn't see the frog until I looked at the highlighted image.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Crypsis
 * FP category for this image:Animals
 * Creator:Lior Golgher


 * Support as nominator --DS (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The image is currently only used in a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've switched the images around; the lizard was too easy to see and thus not the best example. DS (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I'm afraid I still have to oppose, per the reasoning below. A cool picture, but not really FP material. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The date at the bottom should be cropped. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  14:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - cannot support until that is removed. gaz hiley .co.uk  14:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the harsh lighting. Also, the frog is extremely difficult to see, so should be presented with some sort of clear identification (possibly another pic alongside it in the article) to aid readers.  Jujutacular  talk 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that a highlighted image is available. DS (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a note to help people see it on the image. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  17:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support WOW, a great example of camouflage GerardM (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The timestamp has been removed (thanks, Rama); see Camouflage DSC05383 -Rama.JPG. DS (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I support gaz hiley .co.uk  17:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support without timestamp. Awesome. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The frog is tiny in the picture. I'm not sure I'd be able to see it even if it weren't camoflaged. It should be cropped a bit closer at least. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The frog makes up what, 3% of the pixels of the photo? The reason I couldn't find the thing at first was because of the expectation I had on size. I'd support a photo of this type of frog in this type of environment, but not when it's so damn small and makes up so little of the photograph. In it's current state, this is a Where's Waldo.  upstate NYer  03:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jujutacular and UpstateNYer. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support Great image, amazing camouflage. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Per all above, mostly the fact that if the image was cropped correctly to show the frog and not just a pile of leaves, then it would d be nowehere near upto standards. JFitch   (talk)  16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jfitch. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Featured Picture of the Day shouldn’t be Where’s Waldo. Greg L (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support Brilliant example of camouflage. But should be cropped a little closer. rivergod
 * Oppose Very harsh lighting, and I fear many ordinary Wikipedia users just take a quick peek at TFP, and they would consider this to be 'just a pile of leaves'.  WackyWace  converse 13:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose FPs should not be confusing. Without even a caption with the to reduce the confusing is not worth bothering. The object shown here isn't even in the center of the image. Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

6 supports to 9 opposed. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  15:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)