Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Carduelis carduelis 1.jpg

European Goldfinch

 * Reason:I'd like the branch to be a bit thinner, but all important plumage is present. Meets quality standards. Don't seem to be any high quality images of the species about.
 * Articles this image appears in:Carduelis, European Goldfinch
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks nearly perfect. If this is promoted, I think it should replace the bizarre cut-out images current used in the European Goldfinch infobox. Kaldari (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Aesthetically, I'm not a fan of photos of birds looking at or nearly at the camera and the beak shape/size is hard to see clearly. Also, it looks like there is some motion blur on the head (diagonal - top-left <-> bottom right) but I'm not sure if my mind is playing tricks on me as the shutter speed of 1/800th probably should have been enough (unless it was a pretty fast head movement). &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an alt, though I prefer the green background personally. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Original. As per Kaldari, nearly perfect, only the strong midday shadow somewhat disturbing. Original better for composition, pose revealing wing colours, background, and more horizontal view angle rather than from below. Elekhh (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support either. Original has slight motion blur noticeable at full res and alt is missing the wing colours --Muhammad (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A tiny bit of yellow is visible on the alt (though agreed not much) Noodle snacks (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. The broad branch is too prominent and is obscuring too much of the bird. It is a good picture showing some the details of the front of the bird (behind the branch), but I would also like to see a bit more of the plumage on its side or back. I think it needs explaining why the backgrounds are completely different on the two pictures shown. Are the backgrounds processed? Snowman (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved quite a bit between the first shot and later, when the second was taken. One is a mulberry tree, the other is the sky. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: original or alt, with preference for original.  Mae din \talk 09:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No consensus, due to two opposes and recent change in numerical policy.

-- Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)