Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/red-necked wallaby

Reason: clear and informative and superior to any other images of this species on wikipedia
Articles this image appears in: red-necked wallabys
Creator: --Benjamint444 10:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Benjamint444

Support — Benjamint444 10:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detail (rez and focus) are fine, and I don't see any artifacts or anything.--Here T oHelp 12:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Uninteresting angle, subject blends in with background, lighting is a bit cold, composition is too simple (looks like a mug shot) -Fcb981 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo Tomer T 23:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Fcb981. --Mad Max 04:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose as per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs)
Neutral - I love to support but the background kills it for me. The animal blends too much with it and the background is uninteresting. Otherwise it's a very sharp image. --Arad 19:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Nelro 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Who left the anonymous vote? I didn't think that was alllowed, anyway, can you clarify, oppose as per nom doesn't make sense, thanks --Benjamint444 23:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter as I, the closer, can pretend it doesn't exist. MER-C 05:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose For same reason as I did on common (user Benh) ; the overall picture has too much sad "brown/gray" colors I don't like (looks like the weather was cloudy a shoot time, so I suggest you try to adjust temperature to a warmer side a little). As has been said, the picture is very sharp though and I may support an edit. Blieusong 10:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the edit version, I change my mind from oppose to neutral, so my vote won't be a penalty if other user like the pic. still not enough for me to support however (ack every comments over here). Blieusong 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not very striking composition. Distracting background. Not quite up to the very high standards of Wikipedia's existing featured pictures of mammals. -- Balster neb 17:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]