Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Willy wag tail.jpg

Willie Wagtail

 * Reason:High quality image of a Willie Wagtail. Seems to fit all the criteria IMO
 * Articles this image appears in:Willie Wagtail
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 01:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent technically. Definitely adds to an otherwise uninteresting article.Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * — seems to have joined to support this picture and badmouth a well written article (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If the article is that uninteresting why would I want the picture to be seen on the front page, which would then link it to a second rate article? You've given me one good reason not to support the image.  --Blechnic (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * the picture looks great, and meets the criteria to be a featured picture. That has nothing to do with the quality of the article it appears on.  It's nominated to be a featured picture, not featured article. I don't think that the article is a bad one, it's just that I find the subject of the article uninteresting/boring. Articles don't have to be written in an exciting way.  Most of the articles that go with featured pictures are pretty boring. I'd bet that most of the folks commenting on these featured picture candidates don't care much about the articles, but like pictures. Besides It's only my opinion.  And the point is that the picture adds value to the article, so I support it being featured. If you believe it should not be featured because of the quality of the associated article, then you're welcome to !vote oppose.  In that case who ever makes the decision to promote or not is sure to see a reason for opposing that's not supported. Dwayne Reed (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a very high quality image, and adds significantly to the article and to Wikipedia.--Polymath618 (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Perhaps a bit too bright and plumage detail is quite soft, but overall nice DOF and clarity Capital photographer (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support A very nice image, but I wish that the background branches were in lesser focus. (The Branch the bird is on is fine. The branches seem to be in better focus than other FP's I've seen, like this or this. Also, if someone could slightly blur the branches like this, I'd fully support. Spencer  T♦C 20:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support It's a really nice picture, but it looks a little funny with half of the branch in focus and the other half blurry.116135 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense but welcome to DOF --Fir0002 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support in spite of the supporter above badmouthing the article as if the picture shouldn't see light of day because of an inferior article--the article's fine. --Blechnic (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - good image of a useful subject. Well taken and composed. His tail has suffered the ravages of time though - Peripitus (Talk) 04:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support good picture. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 00:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)