Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Female guajon frog on tree

Female guajon frog on tree

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2011 at 22:59:42 (UTC)

• Support as nominator --Cerejota (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Pine^talk 08:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. El Johnson (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • support both versionsEl Johnson (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This has looks up-sampled to me and the quality suffers when viewed at any reasonable resolution. If down-sampled it may still meet the criteria, but as is I can't get behind it. Cowtowner (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup: I still oppose the nomination more or less per Makeem. This doesn't touch the quality of our current gallery, with the possible exception of a now-extinct species. While I'm not a proponent of the "we can do better argument" (for, surely, we always could), it certainly seems to be the case that we haven't done well enough yet and should expect more. Cowtowner (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I have to agree with Cowtowner, the full image seems up-sampled. I'd support a down-sampled version with good image quality. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Down-sampled to minimum size for FPC. Please re-evaluate comment.--Cerejota (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You probably didn't have to go that far. What would a 1500x(w.e.) pic look like? It might be a good compromise between size and quality. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Down-sampled to 1500px on widest side. Support? --Cerejota (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that four people had already supported the non-downsized version, you should be putting the edit up as a separate edit, not overwriting the original (especially given it's not even your photo). As is, those pre-edit votes technically don't necessarily count now. --jjron (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• More likely, as they were "per nom" support, they support the change as a minor improvement to the encyclopedic quality. I have notified them of your concern so they can weight in. If they do not respond, we can safely assume they still support.--Cerejota (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the notification. I have no problem with either version, although I agree with jjron that it would have been better to set up the alternates separately. I agree that the original and the 1500 version are a little grainy but for me either is good enough. Pine^talk 00:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried doing that but I could link to the previous version using the thumbnail box. Can you help doing it?--Cerejota (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not exactly sure what or who you're asking, but refer to something like Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Semar_Kris up above for what to do. You can't link to the overwritten file; you need to upload the edit as a new file to show them both. --jjron (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support: Seems a little grainy, but not as bad as the original size. Pose is nice, sharpness is pretty good, colour balance is nice. EV is good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't come close to the standard set by our other amphibian FPs. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is an element of subjectiveness here, but this is a nocturnal amphibian in its natural habitat. Except for the directly comparable File:Atelopus certus calling male edit.jpg, (which except for being larger and having a less busy background -probably due it being a captive/staged picture- it is of the exact same technical quality and is nocturnal) the two or three closest amphibians are indeed brighter, but they are diurnal and have the advantage of natural light, however they have the same EV, focus, color balance and subject centerness, essentially the same quality. Other than that, with the fix for downsampling, this is at the level of the comparable amphibian FPs that exist, like File:Bufo_melanosticus_01.JPG or File:Litoria_phyllochroa.JPG. So I find your comment that it "Doesn't come close" to be a bit unfair - at a technical level it is at the same level or close to it. I could accept some of these amphibians are prettier subjects, with brighter colors or better habitats, but that is what the subject is - if that is what your are evaluating, it sounds like you think it is impossible to make an FP of this subject - something I think the FP process doesn't agree with. I carefully evaluated this picture against the existing Amphibians before nomination, and found it comparable, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting out time.--Cerejota (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this picture was most probably pretty easy. It was most likely just a matter of pointing the camera at it with the flash on. I'm guessing the quality was a bit low because the photographer had to crop it since he/she didn't have a macro lens. That possibly the choice of aperture possibly. About half the amphibian FPs are taken with flash, probably at night, and most of them are better quality. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have handled this particular frog, and there is nothing easy about photographing it, it is evasive, quick moving, and seldom comes out of its rock habitat into the trees. I am actually extremely surprised at the quality considering how rarely photographed this species is - unlike other frogs called "coqui" or "guajon" in Puerto Rico, this is a rock-dweller, and very hard to spot and photograph. Compare for example, the pedestrian photographs of other "coquis" File:Eleutherodactylus_antillensis01.jpg, File:Eleutherodactylus_gryllus.jpg, File:Common_Coquí.jpg etc. You will hopefully see why the issues introduced by scaling are minimal compared to the other quality standards to be considered, both in comparison to other amphibian FPs and to other pictures of similar frogs in the same genus and habitat area - extremely difficult topic to successfully photograph. This picture is amazing in that context, and enough intrinsic value to be featured even without that context, at least in my view and in comparison with other Amphibian FPs.--Cerejota (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did support it. I mean easy in the technical sense, like with the right equipment it is "just" a matter of point and shoot. I didn't mean that it'd be necessarily easy to get the camera in the right position, or find the subject. However, many subjects presented here are evasive, quick moving and difficult to find. "coquis", and other species from that region are poorly represented here because of systemic bias as far as photographer location goes, not because of inherit extra difficulty. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you support, I am simply putting an additional element to consideration - I am surprised that the best quality coqui picture in wikipedia (which is this one) is actually of one of the hardest one to make, while the common coqui, which is pernicious and easy to photograph is lacking.--Cerejota (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note that File:Atelopus certus calling male edit.jpg was taken in the wild at night, not captured/staged. As was File:Dendropsophus microcephalus - calling male (Cope, 1886).jpg which makes it also a reasonably direct comparison (and that one gets significant bonus EV for the vocal sac). --99of9 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this picture of the same (or approaching) FP quality, except in size - which I think shouldn't be punished for, as it is sufficient for FAC criteria (ie not all FPs need to be the same size/resolution).--Cerejota (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm not punishing it for size, I agree it meets the criteria, but that doesn't make it of the same quality as better resolved ones. Even if we were only evaluating the thumbnail, this one shows very considerable noise! --99of9 (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]