Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eastern grey kangaroo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2020 at 01:40:04 (UTC)

Original – Eastern Grey Kangaroo mother and joey, Brunkerville, New South Wales, Australia

Reason: Lead image, FP on Commons. This is a 2nd nom. The image was touched up and is now FP on Commons. There is noise (high ISO) in the underbelly of the mother, but the composition is too good to pass, the EV is also good. It's unlikely we get a better image in the infobox any time soon.
Articles in which this image appears: Eastern grey kangaroo
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as last time (the pouch and underbelly noise is really ugly). Also because I think that the strategy of repeatedly trying again after a nomination was opposed is irritating. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a repeat nom is not unusual, there are many examples in the archives [1], [2]. Bammesk (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Know whats really irritating? Having to get 4 supports and no opposes to get to FP territory and on multiple occasions falling just one !vote short and watching a nomination fail because people didn't give enough of a damn to nudge your nom just far enough to get it across the finish line. That's been the reason for more than one repeat nomination I have filed, and I'm sure others here have had the same issue too. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support For the hell of it. I've seen worse Kodiak Moments. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality lacking Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons above. ISO 1600 has severely wrecked the quality. -- Veggies (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was supported almost unanimously on Commons, and the folks over there have SERIOUSLY high standards. Kestreltail (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true, standards are quite variable. Though 17-nil is a good endorsement. I was away, but would have voted against. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support some quality issues, but still OK, and superb composition + catch. Anyone can shoot a sharp picture of common subjects, but we have only a few of such nice catches and I think this should be emphasized. - Benh (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]