Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Black headed bunting

Black-headed Bunting
Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2010 at 09:25:56 (UTC)
 * Reason:Interesting bird, good resolution and focus, nice composition. Used well in our species article, featured on Commons and the Spanish Wikipedia.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Black-headed Bunting
 * FP category for this image:Birds
 * Creator:Mjobling


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support If we’re gonna have yet another bird photo on the main page, let it be one that is head & shoulders better than the typical one here. But I think it could be a bit brighter. I just tried brightening up a version I dragged onto my computer it and it looked really nice. Greg L (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support Per Greg, it could be a bit brighter. Gut Monk (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Off topic Greg nailed it. I, too, have seen A LOT of bird pictures in the recent history.  (Are we a lot of ornithologists?)  But I want Wiki help.  Has someone seen the high-resolution picture of the baby duck and butteryfly picture?  Would they please cite it if you have?  Gut Monk (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Birds are a popular topic for photographers? We don't have a featured picture of this particular species; the fact we do have a picture for another species shouldn't matter. J Milburn (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Oppose Both The bird looks great, the head, the feathers, though the tail's a bit OOF, even the feet and branches under it look good, but the background is so drab, it subtracts from eye-appeal and makes an adorable little song bird seem tragic, and I doubt there's anything that can be done to fix it and keep it realistic. It looks like night is falling, maybe if the night sky was in the background in this it would be better, sorry, J. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The well-intentioned alternate's not much better, and I still think we can do better as far as featuring bird images. In Edit1 it looks like the bird formally had its picture taken complete with reflectors. I could maybe think about supporting one of these as a valued image and Mjobling has potential, but let's be real: Does any of you really think this is one of the best bird images we have? --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Prior to the last two weeks or so (my Holidays), only a handful of birds were promoted from March or so. As a corollary - the long term rate isn't actually that high. Since my holidays conclude today, I won't be nominating any more for some time most probably. Regardless, the argument that we have had a lot of bird pictures in the last two weeks doesn't really hold any water. I am sure that User:Howcheng will spread them out on the main page and that argument isn't included in the FP criteria. Moving to the picture itself, it is perhaps a little dark, but this is probably needed to avoid blown highlights, and overall it meets the criteria. I'm sure an edit with the curves tool would be an improvement. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note I tried to improve this by brightening the image and cropping it a bit tighter. Wikipedia’s servers seem to have a bug in the way they convert thumbnails because the thumbnails here seem to be darker and more saturated than the full-size originals on Commons, which tend to look less saturated and lighter. In doing so, I necessarily had to blow out detail in the bird’s neck, so now I see why the original was made the way it was. I contribute it to see if others think it an improvement still. Greg L (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The original is way better, your edit makes it almost cartoon colors. Sorry. — raeky ( talk 05:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Original Oppose Color Edit I think the colors, lighting, and crop of the original is just fine. — raeky ( talk 05:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Original Oppose Edit1 per Raeky -- George Chernilevsky  talk 10:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Benjamint 12:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  T · C 18:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)