Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jackson's Chameleon 2 edit1.jpg

A Jackson's Chameleon on the Island of Maui

 * Reason:Subject is nicely defined in a beautiful surrounding.
 * Articles this image appears in:Chamaeleo jacksonii
 * Creator:User:Movingsaletoday


 * Support as nominator --Rj1020 (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose First, I think, it has a bad composition: All the plants are really distracting. In addition to that, it's blurred and very noisy at full resolution. All in all low technical quality and —because of the points mentioned before— not even that high encyclopedic value. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support great color, and detail on the lizard. Shows its camouflage well also. de Bivort 21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Per nominator. I have a question, what are those small circles on the leaf ?  Beware  ofdog  04:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Original - Support Edit Poor quality both technically and aesthetically in the original. Not enough impact and needing a crop. The edit is much nicer, support. Greater impact. Capital photographer (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - not perfect but a large decent quality image that definately adds value to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Brilliant image, I especially like the way you don't even see the animal at first. Nice composition, good detail. ProfDEH (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't need cropping. The interesting thing about chameleons is the well-known fact that they blend into the background. Usually photographs completely fail to demonstrate that (look at the other examples on the article) and here you really do see it. The bright flowers help a lot with that. ProfDEH (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Crop - Plenty of detail in the subject itself. I wonder if it might benefit from a tighter crop to make the subject more visible in the thumbnail? I prefer the new cropped version Noodle snacks (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Subject is partly hidden by foreground objects. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The point of this picture is to show how well he blends in with his surrounding, not to show an isolated chameleon. Does an excellent job of doing that. Clegs (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't stated anywhere - neither caption here nor in article, and it's not included in any camouflage-related articles. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Next time tell the plants to go away?  What's the EV in deleting the surroundings from a well-blended chameleon?  Love the colors, it's a fun image.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Being an encyclopaedia, we try to illustrate the whole animal, not just the parts that happen not to be obscured when the photograph is taken. These creatures don't exactly run away at a flying pace, so there's no good excuse for the random flowers in the foreground. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The good excuse for the random flowers is habitat. Encylcopedias contain illustrative images of the entire animal as an example of form alongside images of animals in habitat, because creatures do not live in isolation.  Our articles are not mere descriptions of the morphology of an animal, they discuss its habitat, its ecology, its life cycle, including reproduction, maturation, means of defeating animals that prey upon it.  If they don't cover all of this they're called and classified as articles in need of work: stubs and start class.   --Blechnic (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Chamaeleons are not native to the Americas, nor anywhere close to Maui. The image description even identifies the animal as "feral". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is a picture of a pet? I'll go look.  I didn't understand that.  --Blechnic (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)  Oh, feral.  Well, what's your point, though?  It's not a non-chameleon because it's feral?  --Blechnic (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)