Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Braunrückentukan.jpg

Swainson-Tukan (Ramphastos swainsonii)



 * Nominate and support cele4 10:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the background detracts from the bright colors of the bird. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mgm. Thelb 4  17:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the background detracks from the bright color of the bird - if anything, it adds to it. It's an odd color, but it somehow complements the bird itself well - compare to a similar picture with nondescript leaves or branches or something. I like this picture. That being said, there's an odd blurry thing at the bottom to the right of the bird, and it's merely a good picture, not a great one. Weak oppose. Zafiroblue05 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I like it. drumguy 8800  - speak? 04:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * the edit. drumguy 8800  - speak? 06:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What article is this picture in? According to the File links, it is not listed in any article.  Also, "Ramphastos swainsoni" does not link to an article.  Either make the article a redirect page to "Toucan" and put the picture on the Toucan page or create an article for the specific species, with the picture in it.  This is a good photo, and when you have it in an article, I will again support.  drumguy 8800  - speak? 15:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I really like this picture.. and its good that its in an article now. Disagree with comments that it is over saturated.  drumguy 8800  - speak? 20:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No concensus ~ Veledan • Talk 20:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the green had some texture it would be a nice aspect of the photo, but it's just a solid color more or less, so I don't think it's FP worthy. --JPM 06:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the solid green background is one of the main features. Unfortunately due to the low res I can't support, but still a good photo. Uploaded an edit without the distracting thing at the bottom center of image --Fir0002 11:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Low res? Looks big enough to me... Perhaps as noted on the talk page, we should go about quantifying "small". enochlau (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I like it. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I actually think the green complements the bird quite well. However, in the full sized image, there are compression artifacts on the black feathers, and the yellow feathers are washed out. enochlau (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification: neutral for original, oppose edit in its current state. enochlau (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent colors and detail. I have absolutly no problem with the background. Eyesclosed 19:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose (strongly executive veto nay nay nay if anyone cares), not used in any article. Just as a comment, the edit oversaturates a bit and check the birds belly. I think the edit removed detail which might been part of the bird! (still oppose pixel pushing in general) --Dschwen 10:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the edit is used in Chestnut-mandibled Toucan. The original, however, is not in any article. If the original is featured it will of course replace the edit in the article, so this should not be a concern. Raven4x4x 10:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad, I didn't think that edit would be replaced so quickly. Still have to oppose edit according to my comment concerning the quality of the edit. --Dschwen 11:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the original would be fine, if it could be cropped a little more at the top. --Dschwen 23:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the edit. The color of the background is not a problem for me. --Janke | Talk 21:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The flaw in the edit has not been adressed yet. Am I the only one who is bothered by it? First of all, why remove the branch the bird is sitting on? Then why remove part of the bird? --Dschwen 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, part of the bird's gone missing. Although as for the branch, I don't think that's a major problem since the bird isn't sitting on that part of the branch - the bit removed just happens to be in the foreground, no real loss of encyclopedic value. However, if I would prefer it if the bottom part were cropped off instead of photoshopped out. enochlau (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - do a crop, and we can get out of the nitpicking about whether to retouch or not. In this case, the touch-up did nothing to destroy the encyclopedic value. Crop slightly at the top, too, to balance the composition. The colors in the edit are more to my liking, though. --Janke | Talk 08:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

