Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/American robin perching

American robin perching

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2014 at 17:13:09 (UTC)

Original – American robin (Turdus migratorius) perched on an apple tree in spring.

Edit 1 - Green tape cropped

Reason: Meets FP criteria, no other photos of this behavior
Articles in which this image appears: American robin
FP category for this image: Birds
Creator: arustleund

Support as nominator – Arustleund (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image looks like a wallpaper, almost. The very plain background makes everything seem flatter. It's a neat effect, but has it been processed at all to achieve it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only modification I made to the original file was tweaking the levels slightly --Arustleund (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a wall behind the bird. Is it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's actually dirt. :) --Arustleund (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. There's an empty lot next to my house, and it's pretty much just light-colored dirt and rocks right now. At the angle this picture was taken, the ground took up the entire background of the frame. --Arustleund (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's... unexpected. Guess you had the higher vantage point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, rare for a bird shot, but he was perched on a young tree and I was actually higher than him while taking this picture. --Arustleund (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The green tape at left seems a little bit distracting. Sca (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added an alternative Edit 1 with green tape cropped out --Arustleund (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Godhulii 1985 (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still relatively new to this process. Is there is reason that this did not receive many votes? It hasn't received any Opposed votes so I'm not sure how to improve any future submissions. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks! --Arustleund (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for promotion. If you want advice about how to improve future submissions than you can ask Crisco 1492, Diliff or JJ Harrison. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I actually didn't see this nomination or I would have given you my feedback during the nomination. As for a lack of votes, positive or negative, sometimes that's a sign that people are ambivalent or too polite to oppose. I think I'd be neutral on it. It's high resolution and detailed, but the pose of the bird is slightly awkward IMO with the neck twisted around so much like that (seems even more than 90 degrees). Also, is the background/lighting natural? There's something that bothers me about it, and the bird and tree appears like it's slightly cut and pasted on top of the background. The EXIF data says no flash was fired but it looks a lot like flash was used (but perhaps just bright direct sunlight). It's hard for me to put my finger on any single objective reason for opposing it but the overall feeling I get is that it's not quite the best of its kind that Wikipedia has to offer. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for taking the time to leave feedback, I appreciate it! No flash used, just bright sunlight. As I stated above, the only modification I made to the original file was tweaking the levels very slightly. The background just happened to be very uniform in color. I noticed that most bird FPs were profile shots, and there were no Robin pictures that showed the feet. Again, thanks for the feedback and I'll keep trying! --Arustleund (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's true, many of the bird FPs are profile shots, but that doesn't mean they all have to be. It's more about aesthetics I think, and if you can get an alternative view of the bird that is both aesthetic and encyclopaedic, then great! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]