Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glareola maldivarum - Beung Borapet.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Glareola maldivarum - Beung Borapet.jpg, featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 11:18:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created&uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ю. Данилевский (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Ю. Данилевский (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)- Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support --P e z i (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment Appears to have a yellow cast IMO. Other opinions? -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)- Comment Can anyone explain for me "wow" or "outstandingness" in this kind of pictures? Just a bird. --Kikos (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- There are many bird pictures on the internet. I assume you don't shoot birds or animals? Probably you appreciate/shoot other types of photography, I can't blame you. Let's respect all forms of photography. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- No wow in the background works he has to do? Jee 17:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Of course, lot of works, excellent quality! It is enough to promote for FP? Sometimes I can't understand how to apply FPC rules :( Just a regular (high quality) bird shot. Except of preparation works there are another indulgences for close-up bird, butterfly and flower shots to promote and accept? In this shot I can't realize even how big is this creature - all background is not in focus. --Kikos (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is not possible to approach a live wild bird and we can't expect more DOF from 500mm. Moreover, the bird easily blend with the background for it's own protection (it only chooses such places for its stay) and we can't even see the subject, if everything is in focus. For other purposes, we have "animals in zoo", "dead specimens with scale", etc. I agree with you that behavioral shots like feeding, hunting, mating, etc. has more wow. But it seems JJH's contributions are more own static moments to describe Wikipedia articles. He prefer to capture subjects without any obstructions so that whole parts of the animal is visible. He has more FPs there (at English Wikipedia) too. Jee 03:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Of course, lot of works, excellent quality! It is enough to promote for FP? Sometimes I can't understand how to apply FPC rules :( Just a regular (high quality) bird shot. Except of preparation works there are another indulgences for close-up bird, butterfly and flower shots to promote and accept? In this shot I can't realize even how big is this creature - all background is not in focus. --Kikos (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Strong support Superb photo as usual from JJ. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support but dust spots should be removed. Gidip (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 09:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The photo has an unnatural yellow cast, which needs to be corrected prior to featuring. Well visible as an overall yellow cast and also in the white areas of the plumage. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
