Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/California-Condor3-Szmurlo edit.jpg

California Condor

 * Reason:Nice picture illustrating a featured article
 * Proposed caption:The California Condor, Gymnogyps californianus, is a species of North American bird in the New World vulture family Cathartidae. It is a large, black vulture with patches of white on the underside of the wings and a largely bald head with skin color ranging from yellowish to a bright red, depending on the bird’s mood. It has the largest wingspan of any bird found in North America and is one of the heaviest. The condor is a scavenger and eats large amounts of carrion. It is one of the world’s longest-living birds, with a lifespan of up to 50 years.
 * Articles this image appears in:California Condor
 * Creator:Cszmurlo


 * Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Bernstein2291 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) This is just an amazing picture.
 * Oppose. Great picture, but not encyclopaedic because it only shows the head. Sorry. It will probably be more popular at Commons. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I tend to think exceptional close-up shots make up for lack of full-length descriptiveness, and this is is a really good example of that. Great colour and detail. OTOH I really don't like the crop, it's way too tight on the right, and there's something amiss with the shadows, possibly from high ISO or enthusiastic processing. I'm neutral for those reasons. --mikaultalk 10:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * support Sometimes not a whole animal (bird) image provides more interesting details that are lost in the whole animal (bird) image. IMO both kind of images add value to the articles and are encyclopedic.--Mbz1 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Slight oppose. I consider headshots to be perfectly encyclopedic, especially when full-body shots are also provided in the article.  For birds, the head is often a key to identification.  This shot is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, but I think it falls just shy of FP quality, because of the tight crop on the right.  When the subject is looking to the side, I like a little room for it to look into. -- Coneslayer 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral, while I am not of the belief that a picture needs to describe the entire topic of an article to have enough encyclopaedic value for FP, I dislike the composition in this picture; the bird is looking to the right, where there is hardly any space, making the composition unbalanced. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Maybe it's just me, but I like the composition - it and the other things it has going for it (detail, endangered subject, and so on) really make it for me. Also, on a less serious tone, that's a damn cool bird. --Mad Tinman T C 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing my Support to edit 1. --Mad Tinman T C 14:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per Mad Tinman hehe! H92110 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * weak support - lacks full body view, but makes up for it partially with detail. de Bivort 20:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * weak support edit 1 Per dB. Wish we could get a nice wingspan in there too. SingCal (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1, weak support for original. I have no problem with either the pose or the composition. Matt Deres (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support both: The second one is better than the original - But both are a bit blurred; but in all it's a good work. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 13:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - I just don't think this is striking enough and I am also concerned that it does not show the body of the bird. Oscar (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)