Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brolga-1-Healesville,-Vic,-3.1.2008 edit.jpg

Brolga

 * Reason:Nice full picture of this rather large wetland bird in an attractive setting, clearly showing all the key markings. I also like the way this image almost perfectly reflects the brolga's pose in the classic (though slightly inaccurate) 1865 brolga illustration [[Image:John Gould Australian brolga.jpg|30px]] by John Gould.
 * Articles this image appears in:Brolga
 * Creator:jjron


 * Support as nominator jjron (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Although it illustrates the bird well, the lighting is not the best, and at full size it is slightly blurry. A quick edit and a cropping could improve this image. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I disagree with Julian. I think this is as close to perfect as it gets. Shame it was moving its foot at that exact moment, but on the up side, at least we have one foot in full view. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I think its a good picture and I love the background. It gives it a natural feeling. Muhammad (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - picture looks too normal - this argument seems stupid even to me, but it's true. Galileo01 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Fails to impress. vlad§inger  tlk  02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Juliancolton...its the lighting.D-rew (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lighting and composition could do with improvement. BG is not so good as well. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can maybe understand people grizzling about the lighting, especially if they haven't bothered to look at it full size, but honestly, the background is excellent, and composition does a great job of illustrating the bird. --jjron (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at it at full res, and it is quite nice and sharp. That said, the background is a very slightly muddled, green, patchy mass that spoils some enjoyment of the image for me. And the light is (both at thumbnail and full res) is not the best wiki, and certainly you, can do. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 15:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, fair enough. The background is a sort of swampy lake, which to me was pretty nice for a wetland bird picture, but perhaps all FPs should be done against a clear blue sky. Sure it would theoretically be possible to get a brolga in better lighting, but this was taken in dappled shade on a very bright day, which is always tricky; I didn't want to blast away with full flash, preferring the natural lighting, but trying to avoid overexposing the sunny bits. I agree the overall lighting looks a little murky at thumbnail, but I liked the lighting at fullsize. The birds aren't especially rare, but going on the article, apparently not that easy to get decent photos of, given they're quite well known. BTW, haven't you railed against people using the "we can do better" argument when used against your noms? ;-) --jjron (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. de Bivort 15:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * weak support It's not as flashy or clear as maybe some of our other bird FPs (which have had the bar jacked up repeatedly over the last few years), but it illustrates the bird clearly and in a natural-looking environment. Matt Deres (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Please consider this a Support for either of Fir's edits. I have no preference between them; the grasses didn't distract me ;-). Matt Deres (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support per nom H92110 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 or 2, Weak Oppose Original- original is pretty flat and lacks wow, but it's a good depiction of the brolga despite the motion blurred foot. The edits give it the necessary punch to bring it to FP level IMO --Fir0002 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't quite decide what to do with this nomination. Either way, I'd like to know which of the edits is preferred. Thanks. MER-C 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

-- due to a unanimous consensus for promotion of an edited version of the image, as comments in opposition refer to the original image, and raise issues, such as lighting, remedied in the edited version. John254 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)