Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Purple Swamphen - Pukeko02.jpg

Pukeko

 * Reason:High quality bird photo
 * Articles this image appears in:Pukeko
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 11:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: it's been removed from the article less than 40 minutes after you added it. One of those cases where it is best to let it settle in the article before nominating. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, having re-read the article, I'm not quite sure what the reason for removing your image was. The editor said because it was taken in Australia, it wasn't the right subspecies, but the article explicitly states that it is native to both Australia and New Zealand... I've reverted his change. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a little sick of WP:NZ. Haliotis australis for example, redirects to Paua which is just a bunch of info about new zealand. Pukeko is a case of clear WP:NZ wash in my view, and is in need of a serious rewrite from a neutral perspective. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need a re-write, it needs merging into the species article (see my original discussion here, I had other things to do and forgot to push it). The Oz/NZ subspecies is not distinctive enough to merit its own article. But that is a matter for another page. This image would be suitable for the main article on the species, Purple Swamphen. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposed a merger. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * @ Noodle snacks: Like most of these articles, the only reason they have a NZ bias is because they are were written about the NZ occurrence of the species, and were usually written before anyone else bothered to write an article about the more general occurrence of the species. So don't be sick about someone having bothered to write an article, be sick about no one being interested enough to generalise it to occurrences elsewhere. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd argue it is actually easier to write a generalist article. To quote the article creator: "I created it because ... as a New Zealander, I looked up pukeko and got overloaded with info about purple swamphens from other countries". Noodle snacks (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can someone put a collapse box around the above discussion (I've forgotten the syntax)? Somewhat irrelevant to this nomination... --Fir0002 10:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The contrast between the bird and background gives it an almost cut-out appearance and the white balance is way off (too red). But I really like the alt1 version, but think you need a tighter crop if you want to use it in the info box on the article page (I don't think the Aussy version is a different, or substantially different, sub-species, so it is perfectly fine for the article page) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the auto-white balance correction was too much, so manually adjusted it slightly. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The alt seems to be the only one with realistic colours in my experiance with the bird. It is called a Purple Swamphen, not a blue one. I'd like to see the original with the colour balance of the alt. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * !? "The translation from the Greek means 'purple black', though they are more blue than purple" --Tony Wills (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am saying the alternate has the most realistic colour based on personal observation of this species. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've overwritten the original with an edit which has the exact WB of the alternative - the difference was extremely slim (4850 vs 4700, +12 tint vs +13 tint) as I expected. Not that fussed but the edit is somewhat inaccurate because the background reeds are not a bright green but are a mixture of dying (yellow/brown) and green reeds. So IMO the original is more accurate --Fir0002 10:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support original only though the image is little bright.--Caspian blue 20:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 version, great photo of the bird in its natural habitat, without the indecipherable, artificial looking, background of the "original" --Tony Wills (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original I shall attribute the colour difference to lighting. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original – looks about right to me. Strong frontal lighting is bound to turn those iridescent feathers a very saturated blue and the ruddy background could be due to anything, especially if it's eg land reflected in water. If the WB measures the same as the alt that's all you need to know. Nice shot too! --mikaultalk 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Original Good EV and quality. Color looks better in this version. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was wondering if people have been considering Fir's Alt1 version at all, few comments about it. Why do people think the original has better Educational Value than Alt1 ? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Imo the alt is below standard for detail. Higher detail = greater EV if all else is equal. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I realise in the 'original' the bird is larger, but what detail differences do you mean? I see the Alt1 as a superb illustration of the bird in its natural habitat, right down to the turned head and alert look (whereas the 'original' has the look of a cow daydreaming while chewing on its cud ;-). --Tony Wills (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Before it could be eligible for promotion to FP, Alt 1 would have to actually be in use in the article, and it isn't. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Used in Purple Swamphen --Tony Wills (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Original has more detail on beak and legs. Better composition too, IMO. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

-- wadester 16  16:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)