Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Anthochaera chrysoptera.jpg 2

Little Wattlebird

 * Reason:Renomonation. I was really surprised when this didn't pass. The image quality is there, and it is practically spewing in enc; The wattlebird feeds on nectar in the surrounding flowers. Therefore the flowers should not be considered a "distraction". Still the best image available of the species.
 * Articles this image appears in:Little Wattlebird, Corymbia ficifolia, Wattlebird, Honeyeater
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Previous nomination here. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And successful VP nom here. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I must've missed this the first time around. I think it has great EV and good detail. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: I respect the opinion of Mick, who supported last time, and have doubts about the oppose that everybody per'd. How can "much of the bird" be covered by flowers?  Even being generous, the percentage would hardly creep to 10.  In other words, I agree with NS.   Mae din \talk 07:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Existing FP, which, like this image, has big parts of the bird obscured. I'm thinking of nominating the existing FP for delisting. I forget what was decided about majorities at the big discussion, but it seems that other nomination wasn't a proper pass for what I remember of the discussion. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Support per opposes in previous nom. The shape is important to EV and the obscuring ruins it. Many coverts and the rump, important factors in the lower body for identifying birds, is not shown.  Zoo Fari  03:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, after seeing Mostlyharmless's opinion, I'm gonna support. I didn't know the plants were identified so that adds extra EV.  Zoo Fari  03:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, for encyclopedic value, particularly in Corymbia ficifolia, Wattlebird, and Honeyeater. In each of these cases it illustrates the bird feeding on a primary food-source, rather than the taxonomy of the bird. In Little Wattlebird there would be a higher expectation that it would illustrate the body of the animal more clearly, and I may have opposed on those grounds in the previous nomination. The quality is obviously there, so I won't deal with that. I also think that this image is "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article", which is one of the rationales for Feature Pictures. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I can recall another nomination that showed a bird "feeding" when no feeding activity could actually be seen in the photograph. The fact that there is no pollen around this bird's beak is actually pretty good evidence that it hasn't been feeding. I feel in our assessment we should stick to what the photo shows rather than some unverifiable story of what may or may not have happened when the camera wasn't looking. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said it was unverifiable? Why would I make up a story? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the other versions. I'm half leaning towards saying they make more sense as a series (or a pair, really). Perhaps inserting the first image into the third to allow the bird to be identified. We really should resurrect Audubon and have him do the drawing... Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - per last time it has EV, quality and passes my own private "would the HBW include it?" test. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original. I like the surroundings.  upstate NYer  03:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

--Shoemaker's Holiday Over 209 FCs served 10:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)