Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:White lipped tree frog cairns jan 8 2006.jpg

• Nominate. It's a photograph of great colour and character, but you may think it's too small...? - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, small, and we have had a bit too many frogs lately. But nice blasé expression! --Janke | Talk 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason for that is that a lot of work is going into frog at the moment (AID candidate for several weeks, now the top ranking candidate; "good article" as of last night; probably and hopefully FA before too long). - Samsara _contrib ^talk 16:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yeah, it looks slightly motion blurred and noisy in addition. I like the composition though. Cute. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support - I like the angle. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I just love the quirkiness. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 17:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I just like it. That little blur does not really bother me. Mikeo 19:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Cute frog, but not quite FP quality; noise and size, mainly.--ragesoss 23:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Too bad its kinda small....I just want to name him Kermit and take him home. pschemp | talk 08:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Diliff Calderwood 09:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have contacted bignoter (creator of the image) to ask if he has a larger image. Personally, I love this photo, but I will reserve my vote until he/she replies. --liquidGhoul 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Bignoter said that he has a much larger photo, but cannot upload it until 25th of February. I think this candidature will go through before then. If I think it is good enough (I am a little worried about the fuzzy nose), then I will nominate it again. --liquidGhoul 11:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Diliff. enochlau (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, great composition, but too blurry in places. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose Blurry, noisy --Fir0002 00:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with Fir, also rather small, though it looked nice as a thumbnail. --Dschwen 07:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose nice pic bad blur Wolfmankurd 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright guys, a much larger version has been uploaded now; for those voting "No" because of the previously small size, please reconsider.

Not promoted . I'm afraid the larger version came too late, but it can always be re-nominated. Raven4x4x 10:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)