Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sarcophilus harrisii taranna.jpg

Tasmanian Devil

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2010 at 09:16:31 (UTC)

Reason: The only high quality shot that we seem to have. The photo was taken in captivity. There are many devils in captive breeding programs in an attempt to provide some insurance from the Devil facial tumour disease. A wild shot would probably involve dragging road kill around on a little used dirt road to create a scent trail, then hoping some turn up. I'd imagine that this might be a bit hit and miss given the hit the wild population has taken. I know that it is a female as she had Imps.
Articles in which this image appears: Tasmanian Devil
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support either as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Would it be possible to clone out the tall, out-of-focus grass in front of his front legs? I find it really distracting. 77.12.156.145 (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Yeah, sorry, I'm finding the grass rather distracting too.~~ J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't find the grass distracting personally. Kaldari (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice image, grass is ok, image manipulation would not be ok. --Dschwen 02:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you will forgive me for manipulating the image! Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made an alternate version with less distracting grass. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit surprisingly how much better it looks with such a small edit. Nergaal (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit much better now.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably the only person who prefers the original, but either way I support. Anoldtreeok (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and oppose the edit. IMO it is pointless and unnecessary. The grass was there, no big deal, and no reason to concoct a lying fake image deceiving the viewer. There is no value whatsoever in made up fantasy content. As simple as that. Support original though. --Dschwen 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original I don't like the fake sunken look of the fur where the grass has been removed in the edit, plus that straw that mysteriously ends at its middle. The picture was more than fine before that. Narayanese (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "lying fake image deceiving the viewer" is a bit much, but maybe we could reach a compromise - and just clone out the tallest piece of grass (that 'touches' the white patch on the chest. This is the most distracting for me personally. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose edit. We have long accepted the cloning out of dust and damage, and there's also often a fair amount of cloning in stitched panoramas, which makes sense since they're composite images anyway. We have occasionally accepted cloning in the background, or the cloning out of something other than the subject. This seems to me different, since the subject itself is affected. Chick Bowen 02:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sarcophilus harrisii taranna.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original has it. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on a sec! I don't see that as a clear majority, by my count I get 6 supports for original, and 4.5 for the edit. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Original: 3S (Dschwen, Narayanese, Chick Bowen); Edit: 3S (Aaadddaaammm, Nergaal, Greatorangepumpkin), 2O (Dschwen, Chick Bowen); Either: 3S (NS, Kaldari, Anoldtreeok), 1 preference for original (Anoldtreeok). They have the same amount of support (more for the original, taking into account the preference), but the Edit is opposed. That adds up to promotion of the original. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, the original looks to have it. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]