Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cirl bunting cropped.jpg

Cirl Bunting[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2012 at 07:02:44 (UTC)

Reason: Encyclopedic, High quality, Good framing.
Articles in which this image appears: Cirl Bunting
FP category for this image
Creator: Paco Gómez

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hmm, this may be a controversial one. It's below our minimum resolution specifications by some distance. The frustrating thing is that it appears downsampled and I think it's cropped too tightly. If both of those were not the case, it would likely pass easily. It does also seem to have a slightly warm tint that perhaps could be corrected. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added alternative, support either. This was taken in Spain (in winter, early to mid-morning), so the actual scene may have been warm in tint. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware that this fails the criteria now, as per my above comments? It's below our required resolution (which was raised recently to 1500px on the short side) which we waive only in exceptional circumstances... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you aware that I do not consider your criteria to have actually passed, as I consider discussion to be ongoing? Samsara (FA • FP) 09:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The discussion has been going on for over a month, and consensus seems pretty clear. If that's not "passed" by your definition, then I haven't a clue what would be? Things like this doesn't go on forever, and not everyone is going to see eye-to-eye or agree, but the majority do agree, and there isn't really a big descenting group of people actively opposing, so it's as good as closed. — raeky t 14:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Support original someone could easily add a few hundred pixels of background image to this photo and leave the bird the same size to make the image qualify for the possible 1500 pixel on a side minimum. In this photo's current state, it's a good illustration of the subject. We can do a D&R later if someone gets a better photo. Pine^✉ 08:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Change to Reluctant oppose after looking at the strength of support for the 1500 minimum. I will respect that consensus, and I think that there isn't a strong reason to make an exception to the 1500 minimum here. Pine^✉ 07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WB off in both versions, small by any account. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose does not meet size requirements (by a long way). --99of9 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]