Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Limnodynastes dumerilii insularis

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Southern Banjo Frog edit

 
The Southern Banjo Frog, Limnodynastes dumerilii insularis
 
Edit 01 ( by Froggydarb ). (Just a bit sharper and rotated.)
 
Edit02
 
Alternate Version-The same frog from another angle


This is one of the five sub-species of the Eastern Banjo Frog (Limnodynastes dumerilii), this photo clearly demonstrates the features of this sub-species: strong blue colouration on the sides and a pale cream dorsal stripe. This photo gives a strong comparison to the photos of the other Banjo Frog sub-species on the same page.

This photo appears in the Eastern Banjo Frog page, and was created by Tnarg.

  • Nominate and support. - Tnarg 12345 07:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this is the third Eastern Banjo Frog to go through FPC. --liquidGhoul 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nice pic, but I suspect it could be touched up a bit to be even more stunning? Bring out the colours a bit more, sharpen it, etc...? Stevage 13:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nice pic, but confusing background. Bertilvidet 14:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't get it, this is where the frog habits, it is a ground dweller on the forest floor. Not all frogs can live in trees. --liquidGhoul 21:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, there's nothing confusing about leaf litter on a forest floor. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Something about the pose bothers me... did the photographer take any others in this series? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have a few more pictures of this frog, but I thought the one where he was sitting almost upright best demonstrated the blue on the sides.--Tnarg 12345 21:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's that his right front leg is "missing"... any that fix that "problem"? If this is really the best to show off his blue, I'll vote on this one, but I'd prefer a different pose. That's just my personal preference though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just uploaded another photo of the frog, it's in a more "natural" position this time, however in all the photos of this frog I have the front arm is hidden by the head.--Tnarg 12345 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Either one is fine, but I think the second one does a better job showing off the white dorsal line. If none of the shots show that missing leg, it's a shame, but not enough reason to oppose. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Bertilvidet. Mikeo 17:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is headed and captioned here as Southern Banjo Frog, but is on the Eastern Banjo Frog page - nowhere on that page is there a mention of the Southern Banjo Frog, even in the description of this subspecies or the picture caption on that page. Is there a mistake somewhere? Also the picture proportions are a bit odd - have you cropped the width, because I feel a more normal width in screen proportions would look better at full size, as I think the background is nice. I couldn't find any others of this species in FP list, so assume none of the other candidates got through? There is a bit of excess flash reflection, but in general I would tend to support (but will wait to see some of the questions resolved). --jjron 17:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, none of the others got through. --liquidGhoul 21:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The species Limnodynastes dumerilii is refered to as the Eastern Banjo Frog, however this specific sub-species, Limnodynastes dumerilii insularis occurs in southern portion of this frogs range, to avoid confusion, ie. calling all 5 sub-species Eastern Banjo Frog, this sub-species has been called the Southern Banjo Frog, I will add the common names to the Eastern Banjo Frog page.--Tnarg 12345 22:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree that bringing out some of the colors a bit more might be a good idea. --Alphachimp talk 07:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Bland. enochlau (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all frogs can be bright green and colourful...Tnarg 12345 08:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree that it is not the most beautiful of the ground dwelling frog. However, I wouldn't call it bland, it is bright blue! I rate the Mixophyes genus as the most beautiful Australian frogs (including the Hylids). --liquidGhoul 09:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The frog is ok, it's the background that I have issues with. enochlau (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is wrong with the backgound? Not all frogs live up in trees amongst green leaves.Froggydarb 11:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't understand this criticism. The background is aesthetically pleasing to me (the rust colour contrasts the blue skin nicely), and is encyclopaedic. It's also mostly out of focus, which is good. Seems perfect to me. Stevage 14:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, but this one is just uninteresting to a fault. No. Jason Palpatine 06:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original version. OK, I'll support now that the Eastern Banjo Frog page has been modified to include common names and reduce confusion. I would still like to see a wider version, but accept that these proportions fit in with the page. The colours on this frog are amazing. Don't see any problem with the background - this is its habitat, it's what the ground in the Australian bush looks like; in fact, IMO, it adds to the picture's value. --jjron 11:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Froggydarb's edit. It's a very attractive image to me, encyclopaedic, no technical blemishes (though not that keen on the shadow behind his head). Obviously the opposers above just have different tastes ;) Stevage 15:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the image seems to be a bit on the dark side...but if this is the natural habitat of the frog, then I guess it's okay. --HappyCamper 15:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Edit 02. Nice colors. I've uploaded an edit in which I've tried to soften the harsh fill flash lighting. --Fir0002 www 07:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Edit 01. A good photo, although the shadow of the frogs head bothers me a bit.Froggydarb 08:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. There seem to be a lot of noisy pixels in the background, especially at the borders of the leaves and the shadows. Other than that I like it. howcheng {chat} 19:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 2, its amazing what a crop, rotate and color adjust will get you. -Ravedave 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 15:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Limnodynastes_dumerilii_insularis&oldid=1138509730"