Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus male.jpg

Crescent Honeyeater Male[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2010 at 08:36:45 (UTC)

Three alternates
Crop 1: Top and right cropped, my personal favorite because it's all about the bird in this one.

Crop 2: Right cropped only. Still adds emphasis to the bird, but more above background.

Crop 3: Top cropped only. Emphasis still added, but it looks more like a postcard, which I actually kind of like.

Reason: One can see the crescents for which this species is named. The species is sexually dimorphic
Articles in which this image appears: Crescent Honeyeater, Phylidonyris
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ ~~Weak oppose~~ Support Crop 1 Only This is a good, nice image, but... I don't know, it's lacking something special in the full view for me. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only (and foolishly) made the crops 2 and 3 based on other suggestions I read here, real smart to add more possible versions for people to quarrel over, huh? Having thought about it the only one I will support is crop 1 because it has more bird, less dreary background, unless perhaps Noodle Snacks can make a version that will appease us all. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that I'd only add to the confusion. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It isn't dynamic enough. While it has a high technical standard, it also appearers, well, to be a good random shot. I'd still append it to the page, however. Gut Monk (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call it a random shot - it took considerable effort. I spent about six hours over a number of days in order to get it. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice quality, good EV. @IdLoveOne and Gut Monk: could you expand your comments please? Right now they don't seem to address the featured picture criteria. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm not outright opposing it. It does seem to be technically correct, but it's boring, the preview image looks great, but it's the full-shot I have an issue with. Something about the focus, maybe it's that there's too much bland and unnecessary green and grey around the bird. Maybe a crop would look nicer? --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that it was just a comment, and the thanks for expanding. To me though, the crop is about as ideal as I could imagine. It has lead room. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on crops: prefer original, oppose crops. I really do not see the need to crop differently here. Crop 2 is especially unappealing, as the above space feels so dead with the line of sight of the bird cut off on the right. In the original - the above space is necessary to follow the diagonal line given by the birds position. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Shots like this are very difficult to take; if you don't believe me, try it yourself for an hour or two. This one is especially good because the eye gravitates towards the subject. It may be helpful to crop a little off the right hand side. Shii (tock) 03:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose crops: I'm baffled by Gut Monk's comment regarding dynamics. It's precisely the opposite of what I was thinking. The bird looks alert and active, as if he has either just alighted or is about to take off. Good angle, as it addresses the main colourings given in the article: dark grey plumage, yellow wing patch, paler underparts. (P.S. No to a crop—it seems just right how it is.) Maedin\^talk 06:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not just basing that opinion on the scaled-down preview. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Maedin\^talk 06:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what your talking about, I can't find a single flaw? This image is about as ideal as you can get for a bird illustration. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment to Jujutacular above. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, my background of nearly 10 years in graphic arts, and 15 years in photography tells me it's a sound photograph. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your credentials are not the problem, too of a much bland, unimportant backdrop is. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't get your reasoning, you supported this image which has a much more bland unimportant backdrop, this background gives a hint to it's natural environment which makes it less bland and more important? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my feeling for this image is similar to that one, except that I feel the background in that one isn't as hard to look at because it's smoother, not lumps of green and grey from some pine tree, and I did prefer the cropped version to the original where we weren't drowned in a sea of green, as did you. What's so wrong for suggesting a minor edit like a crop? Many candidate images are tweaked and improved in-candidacy. The whole of the bird itself is in good quality and I appreciate his dedication to photography, but I feel that Noodle Snacks can do better than this, I also see that Shii agrees. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with suggesting a crop, and if you'd like to crop it and add it to the nomination for voting, feel free to do so. That's certainly preferable to implying that experienced users have supported an image without even viewing it at full size first. Maedin\^talk 06:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

phew Kind of wanted to so I could show what I had in mind but didn't want to be presumptuous. NS did crop it a bit, but I really wanted to see more of the bird he worked so hard to photograph - don't be afraid to crop! I hope you guys can see these before they're deleted, Noodle did license that the image could be remixed. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Original Only Keep up the great work, we do really appreciate the time you put into taking these photographs! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, another wonderful shot. I'm not wild about the crops, and have contacted IdLoveOne concerning their licensing, which I don't think is legit... (Also, damn you for making me read the full text of a CC license :P) J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the above: I didn't want to be "bitey," but I think your views are biased. I think your discernment is clouded out of loyalty to Noodle snacks and that you are completely ignoring the fact that the original is mostly background color that adds nothing of value to the image and fails to give the subject its rightful glory. That's unfair, that's not procedure and that's not what makes a good image or critic. You don't just vote for the incumbent because you know his name. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've given you our reasons, we prefer lead room and proper photographic composition as opposed to a quick artistically bland crop. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BIAS - In this you opted for LESS quote-unquote "lead room," here's another with virtually no "lead room" and not a single critical word from you, how stupid do you think I am? If you want to just pic favorite users to support, fine, but I still hold my opposition to the bland, empty original. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IdLoveOne, constant accusations are hardly very becoming. It's NS's image regardless of who did the crop, so I can't really see where loyalty would come into it. J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, there is lead room in both of those images (PLW reverses the lead room to show off the movement- I don't personally think it was the best choice, but lead room is still there). Further, compositionally, they are very different images, so it's hardly fair to compare them. We're not all out to get you, I promise. J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have said that if it didn't appear that Raeky votes for everything Noodle snacks uploads. I'm not saying out to get me, not that paranoid, I just don't like seeing unfair behavior and unfair advantages given to others. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote in favour of most of the images NS nominates as well- that's nothing to do with the fact that it's NS, it's the fact that the images he nominates are great! I can assure you Raeky does not support everything NS nominates- for instance, just yesterday he opposed this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support original Perhaps in a taxobox crop 1 would be preferred, but as a photograph, I think the original is best. 99of9 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll probably annoy a few people with this, but I really rather like crop 3 - the focus is drawn to the bird as a whole, yet there's enough space to the right so that it doesn't feel cramped. I respect the point about keeping the diagonal with the space above the bird, but there my focus is drawn straight to the eye, rather than the bird as a whole. Which is generally good, but in this case I prefer the other option. Plus I generally prefer the ratio on crop three, as it is interesting in itself. That said, I'm not opposed to the original, so if that's the way consensus goes I'm happy with that - but crop 3 does it best for me. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus male.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]