Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Haematopus longirostris - Austins Ferry.jpg

Pied Oystercatchers
Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2011 at 10:10:57 (UTC)
 * Reason:The one on the left has just flicked a small mussel towards it's mouth.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Pied Oystercatcher
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
 * Creator:JJ Harrison


 * Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is it possible to eliminate the black... dirt?... from the water? It is a little distracting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's pussible to remove all of them, but IMO some of them are needed as they give dimension to the picture, maybe only remove the one which is close to the bird on the right. anyway, it's a nice picture with good EV, I like it.  ■ MMXX  talk  20:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for gits & shiggles I removed all that extra muck. (Edit 1) Also cropped it a bit. JBarta (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support edit . Beautiful, feathers are very crisp. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Nice photo, but we already have a FP of this bird for the lead article image and this photo isn't significantly better than the existing one, so this photo doesn't add much EV. Pinetalk 21:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, the current FP has blown highlights all over the beak iirc, and this is more detailed for a start. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with JJ on this one; the current FP is not of the same quality, although I don't think it warrants a replacement. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Question, what is standard practice regarding having multiple FPs of the same subject? If this is not considered a problem for EV of the second photo then I'll reconsider. On the subject of highlights, I must disagree, because if we're going to allow the recent photo of Paris to be its FPC with its blown highlights all over the photo, I don't think the minor issues with the current bird FP's beak should be a concern. But as I said, I'll reconsider if the standard practice for FPs is that multiple FPs of the same subject are OK. Pinetalk 07:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We have maybe 5 pictures of the space shuttle and a good few of the Eiffel Tower, so it is allowed. I think the key is that it must show a different aspect of the subject. For this image, I think showing the bird's feeding habits and a bit more of the body (as there are two birds) would qualify. Regarding the Paris picture, one of the main reasons for the highlights being ignored was because of the difficulty in taking such a picture, due to usually limited access to skyscrapers at night. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is either some different aspect, or a direct, considerable improvement to qualify. I think this does so on both counts. As far as blown highlights are concerned, thought should be given as to what is blown, if it is an ancillary detail, and if the subject is misrepresented or not. The whole beak on that shot is blown, making the colour a weird orange, misrepresenting it. I seem to recall opposing it at that time for that reason. Some blown highlights on light sources are unavoidable for a night photo. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, prefer original persuaded by Crisco. Thanks for the reminder about the shuttles. Pinetalk 20:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Impala article now has 4 featured pictures so I think this is fine as long as it shows some different aspect of the bird. Nice capture BTW --Muhammad (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer original --Muhammad (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support original Excellent! Something awful has happened to the file-size of the edit, it's less than 1MB. TehGrauniad (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose edit Flicking between them there is a pretty serious loss in image quality. The beak and eye of the left hand bird shows it pretty well. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose edit and Support Original Great pic. Good job JJ! Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support original Tomer T (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * support originial, oppose edit. I don't see the benefit of removing the environment of the species! Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)