Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Tiliqua scincoides scincoides.jpg

Reason

Managed to get the blue tongue in the frame, which was fairly difficult as it was only jabbed out for a split second at a time. About 40cm long. I moved it from the undergrowth to some sandstone in order to get the photograph. I often see them where it was placed so enc isn't compromised. Due to the length to width ratio depth of field is a tad thin, despite being stopped down. Nothing important is missing.

Articles this image appears in

Blotched Blue-tongued Lizard, Blue-tongued skink

Creator

User:Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upstateNYer 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose DOF compares unfavourably to this congener. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That "congener" does not have the head in focus, or the tongue visible and is unsharp (then oversharpened) across the frame, plus it isn't the same species. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The blue tongue is not enough of a redeeming feature for me, as it's exposed in over 1/3 of the images on Google, as well as congener File:Blue tongued skink NSW Australia.JPG, and the brilliant although not large enough File:BlueTonguedLizard 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg. I think it has to be more than a fleeting blurred flick, and, like I said, the other pictures have higher EV for the blue tongue. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those images are not comparable, that is obvious. There is not much point arguing though. As you seem to be incapable of objectivity. You have opposed 85% ± 5% of my nominations in the last few months. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Was going to weak support, then realised that capturing the tongue is in itself enough to prevent the tail being in focus, unless you focus stack and get really lucky. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 10:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry I know it must have been difficult but IMO DOF is way too shallow. I would prefer a sideview of the species to get better DOF --Muhammad(talk) 13:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt Much better, though no tongue :( --Muhammad(talk) 17:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The image seems to have been removed from the Eastern Blue-tongued Lizard article based on the premise that it was not the right species...? Looks like the right one to me, and based on your ID. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person didn't remove it outright, rather moved the image to Blotched blue-tongued lizard and changed the caption in the Blue-tongued skink caption. I'll ask the person that moved it what the rationale for the ID change is. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See User_talk:Ozraptor4#File:Tiliqua scincoides scincoides.jpg, had the wrong ID, though I'm wondering about the other image in that article. [1] says that it is the only Tiliqua species here. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the fact that the tongue is shown in the original helps show the namesake of the lizard. Tails should not be as important (in this case). Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 00:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the alt, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose alt Has no composition. The best attribute of the original is its contribution. upstateNYer 03:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]