Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cape Barren Goose.jpg

Cape Barren Goose

 * Reason:Believe it meets the quality requirements and clearly illustrates the subject.
 * Articles this image appears in:Cape Barren Goose
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 *  Oppose . The head (crest?) looks blown, the lighting isn't great, and the legs aren't very sharp. Nautica Shad es  16:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I went back and checked with the eye dropper, and only a couple pixels are blown. Make it a Weak Oppose. Nautica Shad es  16:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose No wow at all. Clegs (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Clegs. Rj1020 (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose A good capture, but I also think the lighting is dull. Elaboration: compare it against Image:Long-billed Corella.jpg, another Noodle Snacks bird profile.  The colors in that image are much more vivid, the setting on the log elegant in contrast to the drab ground in the subject image.  And correspondingly the Corella, while not yet promoted, has attracted universal support as I write this, again in contrast to the subject image.  Fletcher (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll probably go to Maria Island and try again later in the year, but its fair to point out that it is a grey bird and the colors aren't particularly vivid to begin with. More contrast in the lighting and a better background are probably in order (but bear in mind that they don't tend to feed around interesting backgrounds). Noodle snacks (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Clegs. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 18:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Aitias.Greener Cactus (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support a large, decent quality image that adds value to the article. Would probably have garnered more support if the subject was brightly coloured. Guest9999 (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am sure the flatness complained about could be mitigated to a fair degree by an edit from the actual original per my Edit 1. I am reluctant to spend any more time improving Edit 1 itself as there are jpeg artifacts from the original save that will be brought out too much. A complete re-edit from the actual original would be needed. Mfield (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 06:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)