Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2012 at 17:17:19 (UTC)
- Reason
- Great resolution, quality and EV. Excellence. You may argue that the focus isn't perfect on the eye, but it's really neglectible to me.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Fire Salamander, Salamander (legendary creature)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
- Creator
- Archaeodontosaurus
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Symbolically reminds me Fahrenheit 451. Brandmeistertalk 19:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Pine(talk) 09:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - EV would be much higher with a natural background. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Technical illustrations for identification purposes take the organism out of the natural and present on no background. This image would be a good example of the organism, therefore I Support it. EV is plenty high enough if you view it on those grounds I think. Animal/Plant identification keys if an image is shown MOST OFTEN show the organism without any distracting backgrounds. For a photographic/artistic standpoint I can see your point, but for a biological identification and therefore illustration of the species for an article, no background is acceptable. — raekyt 22:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I see your argument and don't deny that these images have a certain value, and even that 'no background' can be acceptable, even at FPC. But I have to agree with Crisco that I prefer animals in their natural habitat than in 'isolation' like this for Wikipedia. After all, habitat is an important part of the species for EV. Remember this is Wikipedia, not Wikispecies, where your argument would be very much stronger. FWIW, I find the use of this image of an isolated salamander in Salamander (legendary creature) oddly jarring. --jjron (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Technical illustrations for identification purposes take the organism out of the natural and present on no background. This image would be a good example of the organism, therefore I Support it. EV is plenty high enough if you view it on those grounds I think. Animal/Plant identification keys if an image is shown MOST OFTEN show the organism without any distracting backgrounds. For a photographic/artistic standpoint I can see your point, but for a biological identification and therefore illustration of the species for an article, no background is acceptable. — raekyt 22:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I don't find it that important that it be in its natural habitat. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Very good quality. A well annotated picture with plenty of EV. --Avenue (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Salamandra salamandra MHNT 1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)