Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Corvus corax (Common Raven), Yosemite NP, CA, US - Diliff.jpg

File:Corvus corax (Common Raven), Yosemite NP, CA, US - Diliff.jpg
Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2013 at 08:16:47 (UTC)
 * Reason:It's a high resolution, well composed and exposed photo of a Common Raven. The Raven is very dark bird and detail is visible in all the important areas.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Common Raven
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator -- &#208;iliff   &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 10:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent image. Kaldari (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -- Colin°Talk 16:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support --Pine✉ 18:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Yes, it has great features, but you can't see ANY of them at the size displayed in article.  Advise to widen that image.  (And I think how it is used, where posted, how many articles, etc. is relevant...Wiki FP different than Commons.)  Also, we don't seem to be complying with Dave Ilif's requirement that we attribute him prominently near the photo. ;-)  TCO (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is, an infobox is the ideal location for a 'lead image' like this, and it's not really possible to increase the width of the image without affecting the infobox width. I guess I could crop the left side of the frame slightly which would have the knock-on effect of 'zooming in' on the raven. In any case, I agree that image width in articles is an issue, but if you're really interested in seeing detail, you'll probably click the image. What I'd really like to see is some sort of code that when clicking a thumbnail, instead of opening the image page, would display the the image full screen as a 'pop-up' in front of the article, with a link below the image pointing to the image page. I suspect there'd be opposition to that due to interoperability (mobile browsers, etc). But hey, I can dream. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The width of thumbnails is an accessibility/cross-platform issue, and I'm not sure this complaint is particular to this bird photo vs every other bird photo we have. Where you do stop in terms of how big to make it? With maps and diagrams, it has to be big enough to read the legends and annotations, but photographs there's no hard line. The point of not hard-coding 200px or whatever is that the standard for thumbnail size will evolve and be different for different users or platforms. Colin°Talk 10:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is discussion (on wikitech-l) of making images open in modal viewers when you click them instead of taking you directly to the image page (similar to what was recently done for videos), so that might make the thumbnail resolution issue moot in the future (as well as the issue of lacking attribution within the article). Kaldari (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh, glad to hear of progress on that. Given the sometimes slow response, particularly where images are concerned, from Wikimedia's web servers though, I don't know how quickly the images would appear. It obviously wouldn't be practical to pre-load all images, but waiting 10+ seconds for the image to begin loading in the modal window would be frustrating. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  07:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 08:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)