Comment The specimen is alive. The background is very bad it was removed. The picture you quoted is incorrect because it does not show the entire animal. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one. The picture proposed by B.p. shows not the whole animal (as mentioned above) and no information on the size is given. --Llez (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that this is a pretty image in thumb or review size. But there should be a clear difference between an image where parts of the organism are altered/missing through post-processing and background removal versus images that are missing parts through unfortunate crops. I don't want to push the image I gave as an example, I just picked one out. Maybe you should post the original (even in history) so that someone else can have a go at masking the critter. B.p.07:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not an absolute fan of the background, but I think that, until we have a better picture of the animal in his natural environment, this one is the Best In Scope, because of size, light, details, quality, etc. At this size, I don't find there are missing bits because of digital manipulation. To me the masking looks good enough. As a non specialist, this picture "tells" me more about the beast than other images in the scope/category.--Jebulon (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
