Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eastern Spinebill

Eastern Spinebill

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2010 at 12:54:12 (UTC)

Original - Species of honeyeater found in south-eastern Australia in forest and woodland areas, as well as gardens in urban areas of Sydney and Melbourne

Alt

Articles in which this image appears: Eastern Spinebill
Creator: Benjamint 12:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Benjamint 12:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if the nominator made up his mind instead of presenting two images. To make it easier: the alt is motion blurred and in no way FP. Might as well remove it now. The other one is an ok picture, but the DOF is somewhat low and the resolution on the subject is not up to current standards. Oppose both. --Dschwen 16:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support either/both, I don't understand the above comment. The original is beautiful, you were lucky to photograph this bird in such nice weather, particularly in the case of the original where the background matches the bird's plumage (better quality in this one) very well! And it looks so alert. I have a little preference for the alt though because a side image is better to identify a bird, and that is of course the subject of the image. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only. The alt is a little blurry; if it were sharper it would get my support. -- Jack?! 20:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Gut Monk (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support either. I prefer the composition and lighting on the second, but the focus is better on the first. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why are the colours so different? Is one more accurate? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably has to do with the angle of the light, bird feathers are iridescent and stuff and color/intensity is very dependent on your viewing angle. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The bird in the alt is illuminated by direct sunlight, while in the original the light is coming from behind and we look on the shadow side of the bird. Wouldn't surprise me if there was some editing to lighten the shadows. But what does surprise me is the amount of support such a low resolution picture gets. --Dschwen 15:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original prefer that angle and pose of the bird. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially in light of this poll promoting this image would be quite a joke. --Dschwen 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The top image is 1.82mp... don't see what WP:POINT your trying to make? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not making a WP:POINT, this allegation is just rude of you. A POINT would involve disturbing the process, i.e. by spamming the page with more undersized nominations. Expressing an opinion or actually pointing out the community opinion expressed in the linked review should not be considered a disturbance, don't you agree? The simple fact is that clearly a majority of people argued in favor of higher resolutions, and people here are either unaware of that or ignoring it. I find that inappropriate. Nuff said. --Dschwen 16:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The !vote was to increase it to 2mp, this image is 9% short of 2mp, to derail the !vote process of this image to clearly make a point, thus the wp:point, is disruptive and not accomplishing anything. On top of that, after we revisited the issue to actually vote on making 1.9mp, there wasn't consensus to do that change. And this image is only 4.2% short of the 1.9 proposal. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I'm not derailing anything and you accusations are nothing but an audacity. And short of is short of. The proposals were to determine minimal sizes. This image does not even meet those minima. --Dschwen 17:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This proposal (appears to have) failed. The minimum requirement was never increase. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm opposed to that proposal anyway. We don't all have giant HDTVs that double as computers. 1000px is fine. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The increase in size isn't for better viewing on a computer monitor, it's for printably, i.e. printing the picture in say a magazine, in which case our minimum is grossly inadequate. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I'll have to try to get more information on that aspect of the debate, but I don't see what the affairs of magazines have to do with Wikipedia or its affairs. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am with Dschwen on this one. There was a clear consensus to increase the minimum size. If we choose to discard the new rules, why did we spend so much time deciding them? --Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was never changed, check the, check the criteria, due to this consensus so this image is still well within our guidelines... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it was changed, why are we not rushing around delisting smaller FPs? J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Read the page please. That was discussed and not deemed necessary. One thing does not imply the other. However if you'd like to rush around and delist old low res pictures, be my guest. I don't think it should be a top priority though. --Dschwen 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - My God, I'd forgotten about that "reasoning"... If we are to change the guidelines, let's at least be sensible... J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said above: "I'm opposed to that proposal anyway. We don't all have giant HDTVs that double as computers. 1000px is fine." --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Raeky, the requirements never changed so these are both fine. I think it's pretty obvious by the quality that they haven't been downsampled either, so I'm surprised at your vehemency Dschwen and, I feel that although one image has higher IQ the alt definitely has it's merits and the opinions of the community often surprise me. Sometimes what looks like a dud will get promoted and other times what looks to me like a clear FP will attract a whole load of opposes. FPC is about the opinions and choice of the community, not just one person, whether that be you Dschwen or the nominator. Benjamint 00:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful, but both are below the level of sharpness/detail usually accepted in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)][reply]
support Original only, more or less per above: well composed, satisfactory technicals (in my interpretation of the standards) Cowtowner (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support original only. Nice composition, but narrow DOF and focus back on the body compromise head detail a bit. --jjron (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder why the three editors were not screaming bloody murder about the resolution of the recent noble gas nominations. Those were considerably smaller in resolution: ~1MP each. Cowtowner (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose both per Noodle snacks. Original is slightly better but the angle and pose are too awkward for me. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary for original:

Support: IdLoveOne, Jack, Gut Monk, J Milburn (weak), Raeky, Cowtowner, jjron (weak)

Oppose: Dschwen, Muhammad, Noodle snacks, Makeemlighter (weak)

~63% support => not promoted

I'd suggest this may need a recount. Muhammad's vote was based solely on him thinking the minimum size requirements had been increased, when that's not the case. Since he gave no other reason, and this fits well within the current guidelines and is similar in size to many recently featured bird images, I'd politely suggest his !vote probably should not be counted. Correct me if I'm wrong. --jjron (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should see what Muhammad says. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]