Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/American Tree Sparrow

American Tree Sparrow

 * Reason:The image is high quality, encyclopedic, and informative. It is already a Featured Picture on the German Wikipedia. And, well, it's cute.
 * Articles this image appears in:American Tree Sparrow, List of Kansas birds, List of New Jersey birds, List of Iowa birds
 * Creator:Mdf


 * Support as nominator --Nautica Shad es  03:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Edit s 1 and 2. Too much detail is lost during noise reduction. I would, however, support a color corrected but not noise removed edit. Nautica Shad es  21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit 1 is now acceptable. Nautica Shad es  14:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support !vote updated I think the DOF and size are just about sufficient, otherwise it's perfect! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support nice, excellent lighting and very enc. Mfield (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Very strong oppose to either edit--ruined a lovely picture, one of my favorites of all the FPN lately. All the usual, but it's also cute as all.  --Blechnic (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the strike-through mean you've withdrawn your support from the original? Nautica Shad es  15:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the original only, repeat: no support for edits. No, I love the original, it is gorgeous, and enlarged it includes lovely soft belly feathers of the bird. God alone (pick your deity) knows why anyone wants to ruin a gorgeous picture, though, and I don't want any mistakes made that include anyone thinking I support crapping up this fine image of an American tree sparrow.  What a waste to readers who could come and get a lovely image to have it replaced with so something much lesser.  --Blechnic (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support excellent detail. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-07-22 13:12Z
 * Support good choice. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support well done. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 Per above - surprised now one pointed out/fixed noise before me... --Fir0002 12:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh look I can be childish too - strong oppose original due to noise which completely ruins it! Come on guys you're being silly about the noise - it's failing criteria no.1 of WIAFP and you're happy to leave it in that rut?! --Fir0002 04:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If an otherwise encyclopedic and gorgeous image is noisy and correcting the noise appears to mean ruining the picture by taking away part of the detail, part of what makes it gorgeous, then I am not being childish to reject it. And consider that temper tantrum in bold italics the equivalent of WP:NPA.  --Blechnic (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it easy buddy - if you have a problem with the NR removing detail then say so, but at least refrain from "crapping up this fine image" "What a waste to readers" "God alone (pick your deity) knows why anyone wants to ruin a gorgeous picture". I don't want to single you out but you are acting a little unrationally here to say the least. Btw just checking you realize I've revised my edit twice now to overcome concerns about feather detail and now the bird is essentially untouched (appart from chromatic noise reduction in the belly which doesn't lose detail) --Fir0002 12:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Taket is easy pal! Please, take it easy!  Slow down!  Catch your breath.  At work we call Wikipedia's Featured Pictures our "What not to do," to reflect that fact that most of the images that have any scientific value could not be used in scientific articles anywhere but on Wikipedia because of the type of photoshopping (whatever your software) done on the images.  The eager race to get their first and edit nature out of the images, change nature in the images, and promote the unnatural when perfectly good images are nominated is annoying, but the the results that leave usable scientific images as worthless are more than annoying, they detract from Wikipedia's value overall.  So, take it easy on that editing software buddy.  Relax the next time you see an image and consider first its scientific value by, for example, looking at the feathers as part of the bird first.  Have I accounted for your mood well enough?  And as accurately as you surely pinpointed mine?  Did it enhance my post to ascertain your mood at the moment you read my post before launching forth?  --Blechnic (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, back to the images, now that we've dealt with each others' feelings, so important and transparent in Wikiworld. Edit 1 is okay.  I don't see the need for it, but the bird looks the same blown up on my standard monitor, but not sure about viewed on my imaging system.  Still, this last point does not matter to me for FP as the image is for a general audience.  --Blechnic (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A few things: Human eyes see without digital color noise and therefor its removal (which as fir said leaves no artifacts) is more "natural". Secondly, photos here, I'm sure, have been used for scientific applications as much as is practical. I have a summer internship at the Harvard University Molecular and Cellular biology labs and a large part of what I am doing involves image capture and editing of mouse ES cells on Nikon Microscopes costing upwards of $200,000. I also set up a studio in a bio-safety level 3 underground facility for taking pictures (for publication) of animals. Without a doubt the editing I have done on the two dozen images of chimeric mice was more extensive than this. That is my (limited) experience with imaging in a scientific setting and I think the editing is necessary. Sorry, what's your experience? -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 03:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that argument fails, because those algorithms do not remove noise in the same way the human eye does (fact number 1: the human brain compensates for natural noise inherent in the architecture of the human eye; fact number 2: the normal human brain is capable of compensating for digital noise, too). Anyway, my popcorn's run out, and I'm hoping not to have to go back to the microwave. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 16:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fact no. 3 wait another year or two and a DSLR will be able take the same photo (same lighting/settings) with zero noise - aka the same way you get with NR. Noise is a deficiency of a camera, one which manufacturers strive to minimize. Leaving noise like that in an image is a cardinal sin to a photographer. --Fir0002 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how your comment addresses anything I've said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple - don't treat the noise in this image as an inherent part of this scene. The noise is not a natural part of it, it is there because the camera was unable to do a better job at capturing the image. Hence your "fact" 2 is wrong - the human eye is not going to magically edit out the noise in this image (obviously since we can see it) to create what it would see if it where the camera because the noise was not in the original scene but was generated by the camera. --Fir0002 10:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 Very good photo. But I thought a better noise reduction was needed + a touch on the colors and contrast. --Arad (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 Edit 1+Original not enough lighting in my opinion. TALKIN   PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  16:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose - this bird is fat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairyholebutt (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 July 2008
 * User's second ever edit. Nautica Shad es  21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User blocked for vandalism.  Spencer T♦C 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edits 1 and 2. I think the noise is acceptable; the edits are losing detail on the belly of the bird. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)(UTC)
 * Comment - The belly of the bird was 90% noise. I thought that too, that we are losing detail. However this is not true, we're loosing noise. There is actually barely any detail on the belly. I agree however that it's now soft. Which is another point. And is an acceptable one. --Arad (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah. To my eyes, the edits do create an unnatural edge between the belly and the rest of the feathers. I can't convince myself that that's what we should be aiming for, regardless what we believe about how much of the belly is noise. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say good eye, Papa Lima Whiskey, but it's so obvious I can't understand why no one else sees it. The edits create a horrid "unnatural edge between the belly and the rest of the feathers," and lose all of the detail of the belly feathers of the original.  It's awful.  --Blechnic (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support original Very sparrow-like. The edits look strange with the high contrast around the eyes and the glow in edit 2. Narayanese (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've redone my edit with more careful masking which should allay people's concerns - and frankly it would be plain stupid IMO to promote an image with easily fixable noise issues!! --Fir0002 09:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Better, but still blurring the edges of the bird. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I've done another edit - hopefully the last --Fir0002 04:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still pinching the tuft of feathers on his right foot. Well, I've said that the noise seems a minor issue to me, so I'll stick with my !vote. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean the claw? The claw is slightly affected but it's so minor I can't believe you'd bring it up... Fixed anyway, but I assume at least you no longer oppose edit 1? --Fir0002 10:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, foot is the more widely used term, and used throughout biology. Cf. Image:Birdmorphology.svg Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Original Oppose Edits I'd rather a bit of noise than zero noise and lost detail. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I like the original much better. -- Meldshal  (§peak to me)  21:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Geez, what am I doing oppose all. Yes its an MDF, but sorry, an 1 Megapixel image?! You've got to be kiddding me. And I gotta give Fir this much credit, the noise and artifacting is pretty bad. All in all it is just an oversharpened bird shot. We've had way better. --Dschwen 03:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree with the noise issue but I have to say it's frustrating to now see that your original vote seemed to be a knee-jerk one... --Fir0002 07:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this constructive? --Dschwen 12:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well hopefully a gentle slap on the wrist now will encourage you to give edits a fair chance in the future... --Fir0002 22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! Talk about AGF. I'm really sorry that the edit bussiness is an obvious source of frustration for you here. If slapping me makes you feel better go ahead. But be aware it makes you look slightly condescending. After all I have quickly corrected my mistake... --Dschwen 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support edit 2 Though I do agree with Papa Lima Whiskey.  Spencer T♦C 19:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 and original, Oppose other To much background contrast in Edit 2 --Base64 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * UPDATE EDIT 2 - I remade the edit. Like Fir's Edit, the belly is untouched. However more background noise was removed and the contrast corrected. --Arad (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - I think it's better to put this nomination on hold until we get a clear consensus. --Arad (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Trainwreck, original too noisy. MER-C 06:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)