Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Swamp Wallaby

Swamp Wallaby Feeding

 * Reason:This is a high quality image of a Swamp Wallaby (Wallabia bicolor). The Swamp Wallaby is rare amongst the many species of macropods (kangaroos, wallabies, etc) in that they almost exclusively graze, however this species browses on leaves, etc. This photo shows this rare characteristic very well, including the way it grasps the plant and leaves in its 'hands'. (I also have a possible 'alternative' image being used in the Wallaby article [[Image:Swamp-Wallaby-Feeding-2,-Vic,-Jan.2008.jpg|35px]], but I have a slight preference for the nominated image.)
 * Articles this image appears in:Swamp Wallaby
 * Creator:jjron


 * Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment subject is cut off. Is there an alternative with the full subject in frame? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Wallabies are relatively tame, and easy to photograph as a result. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think when dealing with "cut-off" images of animals (especially in smaller animals), it is important the remainder of the animal make up for the missing part, such as the FP's of this seal, or this cat, and given that you can't really see the wallaby's face that well, I vote no. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your photo. smooth0707  (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cut off, hence it has less encyclopaedic value - aesthetic value poor Capital photographer (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it possible cutting it off more would help the image? I think people are bothered by the way you can see most, but not all, of its form.  If you cropped it to box in the head, arms, and the plant, it would bring the focus more to its face and eating behavior.  It's only 1600 x 1200, but I think this can be done without dropping under the image size requirements. Just an idea. Fletcher (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on Comment Added a cropped alternate. To me, I like it more focused on its face. Fletcher (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edit (and for actually reading the nomination) - if the cropped version is particularly popular I can re-crop from the original and put it up at a higher res. I tried another crop too, but mine was tighter, and yours seems fairly popular. --jjron (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Though its cut off, it provides a view which would be very difficult to provide withn a full body shot. Muhammad (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The back half of the wallaby is not in focus, and though Fletcher's crop takes out most of it, a full animal shot is preferred. Spencer  T♦C 23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support crop The oppose votes are perhaps correct that the picture does not do a good job of portraying the anatomical characteristics of the wallaby, but there is more to an animal than its anatomical characteristics. This shot seems to display the feeding behavior very well, and the cropped version emphasizes it even more. The technical qualities seem good enough to me. deranged bulbasaur  00:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support crop--Mbz1 (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support crop that makes it an image of a Swamp Wallaby eating. --Blechnic (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support crop The crop looks better, but it's still not that great. Becky Sayles (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose crop, oppose original. I'd be more impressed if I could see the food actually going into its mouth. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the food actually going into its stomack?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What about it? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just was asking, if you'd be even more impressed?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support either. Each works nicely in the article. Seeing it eating isn't that important to me.Dwayne Reed (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose A good, illustrative image of the diet of this wallaby. However, I do not care for the lighting, which distracts from the subject. (Dimly lit wallaby, very bright background.) Mangostar (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 06:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)