Original. Current FP up for delist based on photographer's commentsEdit1. This is actually the one the photographer said he thought was most accurate, and should be the version up for nomination here
Reason
While we are delisting the first edit and having a lengthy discussion, let's renominate the edit the photographer recommended.
Proposed caption
A terrestrial subadult Eastern newt or red eft, Notophthalmus viridescens. Salamanders of the family Salamandridae with aquatic adult stages are called newts. Some newts, including the Eastern newt, have a juvenile terrestrial stage called the eft. The red eft has aposematic coloring to warn predators of its highly toxic skin.
Support as nominatorCynops3 (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Cynops3, you've renominated Fir0002's edit, which is the same one up for delisting. This wasn't the one the photographer recommended, it was the one I've put up, which I think was a mikaul edit. --jjron (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I thought I had put on the mikaul edit, but I guess I should have payed more attention. --Cynops3 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? This applies to all of your comments below, too. MER-C 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the exposure is better. And the and colour balance is better, too. In all it's more natural. Best regards, —αἰτίας•discussion• 14:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's some sort of strange "scan line" effect going on in the new version. It's most apparent on the newt's neck and foreleg. CillaИ ♦ XC 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original The original is lacking contrast but I like the shot. The edit gives it the extra contrast but the whole image ends up looking like it was run through an orange filter which makes it look strange and unreal. Cat-five - talk 05:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original per Cat-five. Separa (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for above voters. Please take a look here and familiarize yourselves with the history of this nom. Technically, you cannot support the original b/c it is not a real candidate (it is already featured). More importantly, you shouldn't support the original b/c it is inaccurate (not enough red) and therefore not enc (which is why it is being nominated for delisting). Admittedly, the edit looks a bit too warm, but is more or less accurate according to the photographer, who was there and says that the leaves and such were in fact a reddish orange color. Therefore whether or not the edit looks strange (and it doesn't seem totally implausible to me), it is, in fact, the more true and enc of the two. --Malachirality (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct: Please base votes for this nom on Edit1 version. --jjron (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close This is a complete mess. Can we please close this early, delist the original first, as I suggested, and renominate based on the photographer's viewpoint? The whole point of this review was to get back on a more objective basis, not highlight the errors of original nomination. --mikaultalk 11:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should renominate and very clearly state from the outset what you're trying to achieve, and why. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better still, create a new replacement nom and I'll close this and the suspended one as moot. MER-C 12:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'tis done, do yer stuff :o) --mikaultalk 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --mikaultalk 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
