Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Phylidonyris novaehollandiae Bruny Island.jpg

New Holland Honeyeater

 * Reason:I was pretty pleased with the composition and final result, especially considering the marginal light. I'll ask what its feeding on at WP:PLANTS soon.
 * Articles this image appears in:New Holland Honeyeater, Honeyeater, Phormium tenax
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support cute little dude. Durova Charge! 01:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Love the composition. Good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The picture is 1400px wide. If some of the unnecessary(?) space was cropped out, it would probably fall below the 1000px requirement. Do you have a larger version? Muhammad (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * its only 10% below all of fir's non composite (eg insect or bird) nominations, and the plant adds EV too (hence receives some of the framing). Noodle snacks (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Nice scene but seems to suffer the same quality issues as my brown treecreeper... Close but I suppose you couldn't get close enough! --Fir0002 07:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually its a 50% downsample; the slightly weak technicals are because of the ISO 1600 and low light. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support for its excellent encyclopedic value of the specific bird and evidence of its engagement in a common activity. It's lovely to have a good shot of the full shape, plumage, and coloration of the bird, with the dusting of pollen.  The image is also colorful and attractive to look at.  I would like to see it added to the Phormium article, also, as the description of the flowers would be better enhanced by this image than the ones now in the article.  Plus second Durova, "cute little dude."  --KP Botany (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, the quality is not there. And I don't see it feeding much. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do have a shot with the head in one of the flowers, but then there'd be complaint that the beak and so on wasn't clear. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. A photograph is not always the best way to illustrate something, which is why we occasionally promote video clips as well. This might be one of those cases. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - lovely image... but from an encyclopaedic point of view the two species pictured (the honeyeater and the the flax) have non-overlapping distributions (OZ and NZ respectively) meaning that the flax is either introduced or in a garden, which should perhaps be noted somewhere. And at least for the flax article a Tui or Bellbird would be better. Sabine's Sunbird   talk  23:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd be the principle reason I didn't add it to the Phorium article myself. But a picture in an article > no picture. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What about adding it to pollinator? The article states "Birds, particularly hummingbirds, honeyeaters and sunbirds also accomplish much pollination, especially of deep-throated flowers" and in the New Holland article "are key pollinators of many flowering plant species", so it seems like some illustration of a bird would be useful. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is appropriate for the article on the New Holland Honeyeater, and would be fine in many other places, but the Phorium article would be better served with a native bird, and the Tui galleries on the commons have many images of tui on flax (for example File:Tui on Phormium Tenax.jpg). I'm also not saying it shouldn't be promoted, I am just pointing out that the encyclopaedic value mentioned by KP Botany is slightly diminished by the non native status if that status is not mentioned. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The plant has a cosmopolitan distribution as a horticulture plant--it may even have been planted to attract honey eaters. I didn't check the bird, but, yes, the encyclopedic value is diminished by the pollinator and plant not being native to the same areas.  --KP Botany (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose for the two species not normally coming into contact in the natural world. Omnibus (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a reason to oppose. So long as it is noted and not pretending to be 100% natural it is still of value. You couldn't argue that this image is 100% natural, yet it is still a featured image. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't consider it a reason to oppose, but I would like to see the bird in a usable specific context, such as, is the plant a common garden plant to attract honeyeaters, like us folk in California plant hummingbird bushes. A bird feeder is different than a non-native plant, because it's easier to put in context that it was placed to attract the bird.  I love the picture, and it would be eye-catching on the front page.  I would like more encyclopedic context, though.  --KP Botany (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Per KP. Maybe a tiny crop from the right would firm up the composition but this is a great illustration. I really don't don't find the grain objectionable at all. mikaultalk 12:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support Nice clear image. Might be a bit grainy though but still clear enough for me.        Adam (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The introduced plant doesn't bother me, as this is noted properly and not misleading. High EV and illustrative value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

--Wronkiew (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)