Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Australian Pelicans.jpg

Australian Pelicans

 * Reason:I really like the lighting and colour of this one, even if it is a bit small (1.4mp). I believe it does show the limited size dimorphism between male and female pelicans as well.
 * Articles this image appears in:Australian Pelican
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose Support The lighting and mood is great. What bothers me is the artifacting around the legs of the outer birds and under the chest of the center one. It looks like a masking issue on a noise reduction? If that's fixable by a re-edit then all good. Mfield (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fix uploaded over the top as it should be uncontroversial. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I would prefer an unobstructed view of all three, but the multiple subjects present--while still retaining a focus on one--makes for very good enc.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Loove it! Hate those birds, though. &mdash; Ceranthor (Sing)  14:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great EV. Excellent sharpness: a really good image. Elucidate (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Sharp, colorful, encyclopedic, but the different textures at each level of the composition give it an artistic quality as well. Fletcher (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice picture, good composition, the blown out patch on the elder bird doesn't reduce its value too much. Too bad it's so small. Was that cropped (my guess) or downsampled? --Dschwen 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cropped, I was hiding in the mud/grass nearby and they were completely wild birds, so there was no getting closer than I was, A pity I didn't have my 400mm when it was taken. It is only blown right at the edge, the forehead itself isn't fortunately. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 07:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)