This is a high quality image of a Swamp Wallaby (Wallabia bicolor). The Swamp Wallaby is rare amongst the many species of
macropods (kangaroos, wallabies, etc) in that they almost exclusively graze, however this species browses on leaves, etc. This photo shows this rare characteristic very well, including the way it grasps the plant and leaves in its 'hands'. (I also have a possible 'alternative' image being used in the
Wallaby article , but I have a slight preference for the nominated image.)
Meta-discussion largely unrelated to this nomination
Yes there is - refer to the lead image in the article, which is of this same individual. But IMO this has better EV as it shows the rare feeding behaviour better, as I have pointed out in the nom. Besides, the full animal is not required, even if there wasn't a good reason - refer to
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals for plenty of other examples of 'cut off' mammal FPs. --
jjron (
talk)
17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, it's required by me to get my support. And I don't care that other people have been willing to pass cut-off animals in the past. Consensus can change and all that. No criteria-lawyering needed here. Thank you.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
07:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose I think when dealing with "cut-off" images of animals (especially in smaller animals), it is important the remainder of the animal make up for the missing part, such as the FP's of
this seal, or
this cat, and given that you can't really see the wallaby's face that well, I vote no. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your photo.
smooth0707 (
talk)
00:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Is it possible cutting it off more would help the image? I think people are bothered by the way you can see most, but not all, of its form. If you cropped it to box in the head, arms, and the plant, it would bring the focus more to its face and eating behavior. It's only 1600 x 1200, but I think this can be done without dropping under the image size requirements. Just an idea.
Fletcher (
talk)
16:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your edit (and for actually reading the nomination) - if the cropped version is particularly popular I can re-crop from the original and put it up at a higher res. I tried another crop too, but mine was tighter, and yours seems fairly popular. --
jjron (
talk)
08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose The back half of the wallaby is not in focus, and though Fletcher's crop takes out most of it, a full animal shot is preferred. SpencerT♦C23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support crop The oppose votes are perhaps correct that the picture does not do a good job of portraying the anatomical characteristics of the wallaby, but there is more to an animal than its anatomical characteristics. This shot seems to display the feeding behavior very well, and the cropped version emphasizes it even more. The technical qualities seem good enough to me.
derangedbulbasaur00:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose A good, illustrative image of the diet of this wallaby. However, I do not care for the lighting, which distracts from the subject. (Dimly lit wallaby, very bright background.)
Mangostar (
talk)
22:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)reply
This is a high quality image of a Swamp Wallaby (Wallabia bicolor). The Swamp Wallaby is rare amongst the many species of
macropods (kangaroos, wallabies, etc) in that they almost exclusively graze, however this species browses on leaves, etc. This photo shows this rare characteristic very well, including the way it grasps the plant and leaves in its 'hands'. (I also have a possible 'alternative' image being used in the
Wallaby article , but I have a slight preference for the nominated image.)
Meta-discussion largely unrelated to this nomination
Yes there is - refer to the lead image in the article, which is of this same individual. But IMO this has better EV as it shows the rare feeding behaviour better, as I have pointed out in the nom. Besides, the full animal is not required, even if there wasn't a good reason - refer to
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals for plenty of other examples of 'cut off' mammal FPs. --
jjron (
talk)
17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, it's required by me to get my support. And I don't care that other people have been willing to pass cut-off animals in the past. Consensus can change and all that. No criteria-lawyering needed here. Thank you.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
07:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose I think when dealing with "cut-off" images of animals (especially in smaller animals), it is important the remainder of the animal make up for the missing part, such as the FP's of
this seal, or
this cat, and given that you can't really see the wallaby's face that well, I vote no. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your photo.
smooth0707 (
talk)
00:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Is it possible cutting it off more would help the image? I think people are bothered by the way you can see most, but not all, of its form. If you cropped it to box in the head, arms, and the plant, it would bring the focus more to its face and eating behavior. It's only 1600 x 1200, but I think this can be done without dropping under the image size requirements. Just an idea.
Fletcher (
talk)
16:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your edit (and for actually reading the nomination) - if the cropped version is particularly popular I can re-crop from the original and put it up at a higher res. I tried another crop too, but mine was tighter, and yours seems fairly popular. --
jjron (
talk)
08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose The back half of the wallaby is not in focus, and though Fletcher's crop takes out most of it, a full animal shot is preferred. SpencerT♦C23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support crop The oppose votes are perhaps correct that the picture does not do a good job of portraying the anatomical characteristics of the wallaby, but there is more to an animal than its anatomical characteristics. This shot seems to display the feeding behavior very well, and the cropped version emphasizes it even more. The technical qualities seem good enough to me.
derangedbulbasaur00:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose A good, illustrative image of the diet of this wallaby. However, I do not care for the lighting, which distracts from the subject. (Dimly lit wallaby, very bright background.)
Mangostar (
talk)
22:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)reply