Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lagartija de lava de Galápagos (Microlophus albemarlensis), isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-26, DD 22.JPG

File:Lagartija de lava de Galápagos (Microlophus albemarlensis), isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-26, DD 22.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 21:41:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info Exemplar of a male Galápagos lava lizard (Microlophus albemarlensis) in Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. The Galápagos lava lizard is a species of lava lizard endemic to the Galápagos Islands. Adults range between 50 and 100 mm long (from snout to vent), exclusing the tail which could double the total length. Poc o² 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The head and most of the body of the lizard are high-resolution, but would you consider cropping out most of the blur in the foreground and background, as well as to the left and right of the lizard, and trying a vertically narrow rectangle that shows only the lizard and the parts of the rock that are thus included? I'm guessing, though, that everyone else will probably find the bokeh fine... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support You should consider cropping a large chunk of the foreground - but I'm perfectly happy with the background's beautiful bokeh --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question I find the bokeh a bit vertiginous in this instance. What makes it beautiful to you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a matter of taste, I guess. I simply like the visual impact of this - almost military like - camouflage pattern. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I don't really feel the resemblance, but that's OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mild support, with a +1 to Martin's crop suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, I agree with your suggestion, too, but I've a problem to carry it out. I'm travelling in an area of South America where the Internet connection (if any) is terrible and I didn't manage to upload a cropped version of this file. Could you do me that big favour? Poc o² 01:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done please do revert it at once if you don't like it! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose short of FP quality because of out-of-focus (head) and over-exposure (body/tail). Charles (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 17:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh light / overexposed Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]