Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Waxy Monkey Tree Frogs Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg

File:Waxy Monkey Tree Frogs Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 14:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Waxy Monkey Tree Frogs Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Waxy Monkey Tree Frogs Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg

•  Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sharp, well-isolated subject—I could see it as a poster—congratulations! →Diti the penguin — 16:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support very nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Why the background is fully black? —kallerna™ 18:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment flash? --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The frogs were behind the glass in a very dark tank, and the flash was used. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Before I read that I thought you had found them in the back yard, and I wondered at the skill of having the flash isolate the subject without any distracting background showing up! Just as well the glass was clean :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• weak  Oppose The right frog is a bit too blurry IMO. Otherwise this is a very nice picture, but not perfect enough for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative, featured

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support first variant is better IMO, but both are WOW for me --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice --Muhammad (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose technically unfortunatelly just soso and the composition is for me not enough for FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose While technically acceptable, I don't like the unnatural environment. Lycaon (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Since when? I mean you yourself have quite a few FP of quite of few organisms photographed in a very "unnatural endearment" [1], [2] and so on. The environment of the nominated image is actually a very natural one (at least California Academy of Sciences tried to do their best ), if we're to assume for example that the image was taken at night. I'd like to thank you for finding the technical quality OK. I mean, if even lycaon finds quality of Mbz1 image OK it means something ... You rebuked a prior review for me, and it was very nice of you --Mbz1 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Good image & I do not consider the environment an issue. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. –blurpeace (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)