Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dacelo novaeguineae waterworks.jpg

Kookaburra
Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2010 at 09:14:44 (UTC)
 * Reason:I was pretty happy with this, and the lighting is pretty nice
 * Articles in which this image appears:Kookaburra, Laughing Kookaburra
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
 * Creator:Noodle snacks

7 S, 2 WS -> per WP:SNOW -- Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Shame that it doesn't stand out better against the background. The tail blends into the tree behind it, especially in the thumbnail, but it's easily the best kookaburra image in the article. I thought we already had one or two FPs of them, though? What happened? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally can't remember ever having seen one as an FP, which is odd once you mention it; woulda thought Fir would have got one - maybe they've been nominated and didn't get through... --jjron (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC) OK, strike that, have just read later comments identifying an FP. --jjron (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support That is one weird bird. Personally I think the color of the tail blending in the background sorta adds EV... — raeky ( talk 11:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not convinced; we already have an FP of the species; what is this one doing that that one doesn't already do? J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a superior image, larger file, better angle showing the coloration of the bird & a branch isn't blocking a portion of the bird, natural background that demonstrates it's camouflage. I think it would be safe to delist the old FP if this one passes. — raeky ( talk 12:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, should this one no be used in the article's infobox? Surely, an image used far down the article, unless showing something in particular, will be redundant to the infobox image? J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would put it in the infobox for the reasons I listed above... — raeky ( talk 14:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If this replaced the infobox image and the other was nominated for delisting, we would be in a very different position. At the moment, I am simply not convinced of the EV. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This photo shows more plumage in my view (particularly on the back of the bird). As an aside on a matter of curiosity, does anyone know why the two birds have different coloured feet? Noodle snacks (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Might indicate a color problem with the other picture... — raeky ( talk 02:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did some further investigation. This should be the same subspecies as Fir's shot. Kookaburras were introduced from the mainland to Tasmania, I believe because people thought that they would reduce snake numbers. The juveniles in my books have pink feet. I'm guessing its just natural variation given that I can't find any information in the literature available to me. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Great quality, and the background isn't that distracting. Nautica Shad es  22:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support That is an interesting looking bird. I like the misty look to the backdrop. I don’t know if that was photoshopped, but it *works*. Greg L (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Perfect photo -- George Chernilevsky  talk 12:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Amazing work as always.  Fallschirmjäger   &#9993; 23:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Diliff, but I like Kookaburras. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I like that image --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 07:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)