Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Kangaroo and joey03.jpg

Female Eastern Grey with Joey

An early morning shot which involved painstaking caution! These are wild animals and at the least provocation will hop off on you! So even with the 200mm on this lens, capturing them in this detail is pretty exceptional IMO. Illustrates a number of articles quite well.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Very encyclopedic shot, and no quality issues. I love how the joey is looking at the camera, but the background is a litte distracting. NauticaShades 07:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High quality, informative, attractive, nice composition - I can see no reason to oppose. --jjron 13:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, good shot but not FP quality. The background isn't so nice, especially that white blob. I think it would definitely be on of the worst featured mammals. gren

グレン 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I agree it is an attractive and nice composition. But certain details, like the unfocused fence and the white blob, prevent from being FP. - Alvesgaspar 16:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support either. Good subject, bad background. --Tewy 17:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Subject cut off (can't see the feet or tail), distracting backgroup, grass stalks in foreground in the way, too much of the shot is wasted (could be fixed with cropping), urban backdrop un-natural. sorry.
  lama 20:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Nice and sharp, but the grass around the subject and the roof in the background are both distracting. -Gphoto 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Support - Re the above; I can understand how difficult this may have been to get, but the ¿shed roof? in the right background, brown thistles in the foreground and trees are all about the same colour as the kangaroo and distract a bit. (Changed in light of "in the wild" discussion) • Leon
• Support. It's a picture of a kangaroo in the wild. I think the background only adds interest to the picture.
  chat} 17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak oppose. Ack Leon. And the bg doesnt fit the kangaroo in the wild theme. --Dschwen 20:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it does. Maybe you're thinking of a kangaroo in
    chat} 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Agreed, I just think the settlements are a little distracting within the composition - it's still a great image, but I'm just reluctant as far as featuring goes • Leon
      • You're absolutely correct Howcheng. It was taken near 37°15'48.66"S 147°43'17.90"E - wack that into Google Earth and you'll see it's a very remote area in Alpine Victoria. --Fir0002 09:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is it now: Very remote or near human settlements? It's your back yard, isn't it ;-)?
          • What, people can't live in rural areas?
            chat} 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • I thought the stereotype was kids riding to school on the back of a kangaroo in Australia? ;-) Anyway, for the record Fir0002, that coordinate seems to correspond almost directly to corner of Great Alpine Rd and Swifts Creek Omeo Rd, right in the centre of town - is that right? Looks to be on the side of the road. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geez, honestly - I guess you missed the near part - I gave you the co-ords of Swifts Creek (as used by the article I think). I don't know the exact co ordinates of where the pic was taken, but as you can see the area around there is heavily forested - which is where the photo was taken. --Fir0002 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm at a computer lacking photoshop, so I apologize, but anyone just wanna try cropping and repost an edit? -Cody.Pope 01:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]