Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Green Tree Python

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Green Tree Python

Picture of the green tree python, self photografer

Nominate and support. - cele4 10:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This photo is not used in any articles. --liquidGhoul 11:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is now on Green Tree Python. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Y 154.121.16.44 (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of the python is out of focus. Especially the head...it's big enough that I can overlook that. --vaeiou 21:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. --vaeiou 04:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I feel really bad opposing this, because it is a nice picture from far away. The major problem would be its pretty out of focus.. the biggest problem I have with it though is that it appears to be in a zoo or some kind of artificial habitat? The natural habitat would be more fitting for an encyclopedia article. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 04:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unfortunately the focus isn't great - the python's head is well out of focus and it appears to have been shot through glass in a zoo as there seems to be diffraction. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it were sitting in a clearly visible box or curled around an iron bar or something I could see why that would be a problem, but it's on a relatively natural looking branch in an otherwise all-black environment. The python's surrounds aren't conspicuously artificial, and don't really detract from the image, IMO. —DO'Neil 04:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with vaeiou. enochlau (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
( − ) Oppose A nice picture, but unfortunately the out of focus head is too big a problem to ignore. --Fir0002 00:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looks OK from a distance, but definitely not as sharp as it could be. Camerafiend 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great shot but not featured picture-quality. Neutrality^talk 00:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Neutrality. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]