Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/English Budgie

Male Budgerigar of natural coloration

Support — Althepal 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : cute bird but not great technically, looks rather grainy, also I dislike the backround, it should be more natural. Arjun 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The image is blurred and has some pretty bad artifacting, the subject is cut off, and the background is distracting. Sorry. --Tewy 02:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also, the angle of the shot makes it rather un-encyclopedic. --Janke | Talk 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Near–head-on shots of this sort of animal don't look so good; humans are accustomed to looking into eyes, which is difficult here since they're on the side of the bird's head. A profile shot would be more appealing and better depict the bird's beak. —Psychonaut 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reason:High quality profile of an English Budgie.. Neither is it high quality nor a profile. The size is not spectacular and at 100% it lacks sharpness and clarity. --Dschwen(A) 12:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It looks like an old snapshot of a family pet. And as Dschwen said, it's not a profile. I doubt even editing would really improve this photo, it just lacks composition. --Iriseyes 17:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- size, cut off, blurry -Jorcoga ^Hi!_{09:29, Saturday, January 27 2007}

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]