Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gull ca usa.jpg

Gull ca usa
Renominated image as was added late to this nomination and although did gain some support, many voters did not respecify their vote. So I've renominated it seperately.


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Obviously I'm probably biased, but I prefer the existing seagull FP as it looks more interesting and doesn't have it's highlights blown. --Fir0002 23:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The sky is a little noisy, and the highlights are almost blown, but both are acceptable (barely) by my personal standards. As for redundancy, it looks like a completely different species than Fir's image so that doesn't seem to be a problem either.--Andrew c 05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Not only does this illustrate a different seagull, but who's to say there can't be more than one gull FP? Nautica Shades (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I like the simplicity of the composition, but the blown highlights ruin it for me. -- Tewy  17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, why not. There still is a lot of feather structure in the light parts and the bird was bright, just as the fish scales below were probably bright. And yes, Fir, you are biased, as am I, and thus I prefer this picture which has a more natural setting. --Dschwen 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support Great image, a little over blown. HighInBC 14:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice detail. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-10-13 06:58Z
 * Comment No offense, but the bird "droppings" in the first gull FP was the first thing in that picture to get my attention, not the bird itself. This is strikingly different. --293.xx.xxx.xx 02:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we all poop, don't we ;-) --Dschwen 21:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But seriously, that was the first thing that caught my eye. Not the bird, but the shit. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support--293.xx.xxx.xx 20:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fir0002's image appears to be a different species (the beak is noticably smaller and is a different color, the plumage pattern is different, the relative size of the feet are different and the coloration of the feet is different).. and, Fir000w's picture has duller coloration. I'm not sure what's better, piles of bird droppings or concrete.. also, I don't agree that the highlights are blown on this nominee, it is a  white  bird and what is pure white but.. a highlight?  drumguy8800   C   T  00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - It is certainly a different species and the photo has great quality. - Alvesgaspar 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

- 7/1.5 --Nautica Shad e  s  09:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)