A Commons quality image, aesthetically pleasing (in my opinion), technically sound (beak may be a bit blown) clearly depicts the head of the animal which is particularly useful in the article as the details of the head and beak are not that clear in any of the full body images. Seems of a similar quality to other featured animal portraits (examples 
, 
, 
, 
). Guest9999 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Creator
- Benjamint444
- Nominated by
- Guest9999 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- You're right, I think the beak is somewhat blown which hurts it chances. Fletcher (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have similar shots but a bit more zoomed in on the beak, mine suffer from poor depth of field and this one is the same to some extent, the beak seems a bit OOF. Honestly the colour doesn't look very realistic to me either, far too saturated. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have uploaded one of my own images from quite a while ago, I think the colour in that is significantly more realistic, plus no blown highlights etc. Higher resolution too. The lighting is a bit dull though Noodle snacks (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Seconder