Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cunningham's Skink

Cunningham's Skink

Original - Large skink species native to southeastern Australia. They have a distinctive keel on each scale, which gives them a slightly spiny appearance. Lives on rocky outcrops or fallen logs in woodland

The Coloured part is all the same bit of wood

Reason: Good quality shot of (almost) the whole animal, the first time I've managed this since they tend to hide in crevices. First good shot for the article too
Articles this image appears in: Cunningham's Skink, Egernia
Creator: Benjamint 11:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Benjamint 11:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We're missing some tailage. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Awesome quality, but loses large amount of EV since it is a skink and their tails are what makes them special. Ceranthor 01:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I dare say there's a bit of false advertising going on here. "Whole animal" this is not. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - PLW: You're right, you can't see the belly, left side of the face or front left leg either! </facetious> Get over it, ~2 inches of tail is a whole lot less animal missing than that of a lot of FPs, look at Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Reptiles and only ~50% of the photos show the whole subject. Re: "false advertising", although they were perhaps an unfortunate use of words they were not intended to mislead; I assume everyone looks at the image full size before voting ... ? Benjamint 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "their tails are what makes them special", (you mean "... most ... skinks, the tail will drop if grasped roughly"?) these don't drop their tails Benjamint 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I agree that it's not crucial to see the whole tail (other photos can provide that info for the article) but the composition is still somewhat lacking - even if you couldn't see the tail I'd like to have had more on the LHS (even at the expense of the RHS). Also there are few areas in the photo I find a bit odd - the first it the rock on its tail? The second is that section of shadow - what's causing it? Maybe I'm missing some kind of outcrop but to me it doesn't seem quite right... --Fir0002 12:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a spike of wood, see edit. The wood was forming overhangs in a couple of places; see File:P1320025 Cunningham edit.jpg for a wider view Benjamint 22:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose Not quite feeling the wow. This splendid creature deserves to be represented with photographic brilliance, not adequacy. Sasata (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Also not quite feeling the wow, but I think it's because the lighting is very bright, presumably sunlight, and difficult to change seeing as that's why the lizard is there, would also like to see the tail.Terri G (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]