Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rooster Portrait

Rooster Portrait

Original - An adult male chicken, the rooster has a prominent fleshy crest on its head called a comb and hanging flaps of skin on either side under its beak called wattles.

Alternative 4 - Larger DOF

Reason: A high resolution good quality image with high encyclopedic value, illustrating features which can not be properly shown in a full body picture. The picture is already a QI at commons and is doing well at Commons FPC
Articles this image appears in: Rooster, Chicken, Comb (anatomy), Wattle (anatomy)
Creator: Muhammad

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Excellent textures and contrast. Good use of depth of field. Could you get information on the particular chicken breed, please? Durova^Charge! 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried my best but I couldn't get the breed information. Muhammad(talk) 06:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good EV and quality. Maybe it is superfluous in Chicken article (I've just removed 6 irrelevant pictures from there!). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've always wondered what those things were....--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per PPR Noodle snacks (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wonderful. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 11:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality and excellent EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-conditional Support though I also would like to see which breed this is, I don't think that information is critical. Matt Deres (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF is a bit shallow, f/4 for 150mm semi-macro doesn't really work. This should be a relatively easy shot to reshoot (if not I have plenty of roosters and would easily be able to reshoot at f/8 or better). Also what looks like lice above the eye and within the comb are distracting IMO --Fir0002 10:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Alt 1. This one is heaps better on the DOF front, but IMO the lighting is quite a lot worse (dark/dull). Domestic animals such as roosters are typically very easy to photograph (as I just demonstrated!) and should be as perfect as possible for FP status. --Fir0002 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments at PPR, though now Fir has pointed out the lice I can't help but notice them every time I look and feel a bit repulsed! --jjron (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regretfully as it is a nice photo. DOF is too short in that the entire comb is not in focus (which is largely the point of the photo), the lice are distracting even in thumbnail view and as FIR0002 has shown a photo of this quality is easily reproducible...hence for a FP of this I expect a significant WOW reaction which this does not give. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully Oppose per Fir. This one is outstanding. Cacophony (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lice IMO are not disturbing but in fact add value to the picture illustrating the fact that the combs are blood filled, hence a potential site for lice habitat. As for the pictures by Fir, pictures 2 and 3 IMO have distracting backgrounds and are not properly framed. The first picture has part of the wattles in shadow and I'm pretty sure I can see some lice in the comb too. FWIW, my rooster picture is also of higher resolution. I think I might have some other pictures with slightly larger DOF. If need be, I can upload them. Muhammad(talk) 09:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I'd like to see something with better DOF (as mentioned in my !vote). Also what do you dislike about the framing? Because these were slight crops off the originals - and I took a dozen or so others and can easily shoot a few more tomorrow to mitigate any concerns. --Fir0002 10:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uploaded alt 4 with larger DOF Muhammad(talk) 20:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Muhammad's original. Better histogram and it even has some biological reality. Oppose hijacking. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Well done! Spikebrennan (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support good illumination and detail, the comb looks natural and not plastic as in Fir alternatives. The lice adds extra EV since they are very common in domestic animals. --Jf268 (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User has 10 edits, all on FPC --Fir0002 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose Original and Alts - As stated above, the lice are very distracting. This is an image of a rooster, not a rooster with parasites. Claims of higher EV due to mite presence are alarming, and there seems to be no precedent for it. I also feel that the alternatives are not up to par per jjron's comment below. This, this, this, this, and this are all (FP) head shots of birds that not only are free of parasites but also feature a pretty quality specimen as well. Per Fir's comments, this FP should be pretty close to perfect based on ease of reproducibility (and the population of chickens: they have us by more than two to one); no mites and a better specimen (specifically comb) will get a support from me. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original - So vivid. Kennedy ^(talk) 14:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives

Apologies for hijacking Muhammad's nom but I felt this was very relevant to this discussion. Seeing that Muhammad hadn't responded yet to my comment I went ahead and snapped a couple of (IMO) higher quality images --Fir0002 22:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's not a very nice move on your part. I suggest you retract it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a constructive edit, not a personal attack and should not be retracted. You continually seem to forget, PLW, that we are here to judge photos not photographers. Any relevant input to the discussion should be welcomed, not treated as an attack on the nominator (I get on well with Muhammad) --Fir0002 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what it was that caused this confession, but... wow! :)) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confession? What are you on about this time? You know you're really going to have to grow out of your conspiracy theories PLW. Just in case it's my final parenthesis you're referring to (it seems the only remote possibility) I'll clarify it for the benefit of your jaundiced view of FPC: "I get along well with Muhammad and feel sure that he will accept my contribution in the constructive spirit it was offered" --Fir0002 08:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're linking to that thread. Seems quite random and disruptive to me. The basic fact here is that by now, you should know that a completely new set of images would require a new nomination to be opened, because otherwise it's left unclear what the correct closure time for the nomination would be. It's in your own interest to give your pictures the full seven days. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comb on this bird looks a bit ragged - would be good to have that in good condition. --jjron (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1
2
3

Promoted Rooster portrait2.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]