Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sea Gulls

Some seagulls at Ocean Beach in San Diego.

Support — Bewareofdog 00:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose because of (minor) artifacts and size, but mostly because the species hasn't been identified. --Tewy 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Subjects are quite small. Obviously the composition is artistic, but for encyclopedic value I have seen better photos of seagulls. —Dgies^t c 06:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Two featured article of seagulls already, don't think a 3rd is necessary unless it's absolutely stunning. Seems quite low res (particularly considering the view of the birds). -137.222.10.67 14:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Really, bewareofdog, limit your candidates. We keep telling you this and you persist in nominating more than any other person (besides Fir). --Iriseyes 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule that governs how many nominations can be made, as far as I know. If Bewareofdog could find this many photos that passed their nominations, wouldn't that be excellent? Debivort 15:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think the issue is that they're finding and nominating numerous images that aren't particularly good.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this is the objection, but if we are going to give people advice, it should at least be accurate advice. Debivort 19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the volume of his nominations this time because the primary complaint we have voiced so far (and that's not the royal we) has been quality of nominations. This time I was trying to express the volume of improper images. --Iriseyes 13:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you did was ask them to limit the number of their nominations. If the rate of nomination remained constant, but the quality improved, we would be very happy, no? So I think your complaint remains about the quality, even though that's not what you wrote. Debivort 10:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my complaint remains about quality AND volume, which in this user's case go hand in hand. --Iriseyes 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you both agree that the user should cut back on the nominations. Bewareofdog, could you please only nominate an image if you feel it is clearly featured material? Because while an image may be exceptional, that still may not be enough. Featured pictures represent the very best of Wikipedia. Thanks. --Tewy 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unpleasing image in almost every way. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose especially without species identification. howcheng {chat} 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not focused on birds. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all of the above, this image is inferior to the other featured picture sea gulls. Arjun 02:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Number one, upload using a higher jpeg compression level (there are jpeg artifacts). Number two, although it is nice and is fairly sharp, it isn't really featured picture quality. Althepal 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]