Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Female Hardhead duck.jpg

Female Hardhead

 * Reason:High quality image of Australia's only true diving duck
 * Articles this image appears in:Hardhead
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 13:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What an interesting image mainly due to the green things floating on the water. Would you clarify what they are?--Caspian blue 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The green stuff is Duck weed, how appropriate ;-). Lycaon (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okie, thank you for the info. I've never seen the species cover the whole pond, so it looks quite interesting.--Caspian blue 15:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say support. --Caspian blue 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Durova  273 15:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * comment size issues. Is it posible to crop a little less closely on the left?©Geni 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean... the size is fine - 1800px>>1000px min. I don't have anything more on the left, but not sure why you'd want more duckweed? --Fir0002 06:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I need to take the time to get some of the local duck species myself. Some hooligans burned down the bird hide some time ago though :(. Reconstruction has just started fortunately. Anyway, the bird is clearly squinting from the E-TTL preflash, or the sun (it happens) and particularly around the head area the sharpness seems to be a little lacking. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm not sure what you mean by the squinting - looks like it's eyes are wide open to me! I think I might have been a little sloppy with NR around the back of the head which might have contributed to a lack of sharpness (but the fine feather detail can't really be shown at this res anyway). Anyway uploaded an edit --Fir0002 13:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support NS is right about the sharpness around the head. But the strong EV is enough for a weak support. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support Per Makeem. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No consensus. -- wadester 16  05:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain your reasoning? I'd say promoted from where I sit. --jjron (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'd have thought 3S + 2 WS - 1O = promote. Particularly since I uploaded an edit which addressed the sharpness concerns which were raised --Fir0002 08:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In all likelihood, he missed Caspian blue's comment. It's easy to overlook indented supports. Mention it on his talk page, and ask him to recheck. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as an uninvolved editor I'd say consensus is to promote. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a mistake; my bad. I'll fix it tomorrow.  wadester 16  05:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed from mistaken non-promotion; my apologies to all parties involved.-- wadester 16  03:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)