Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kea in Fiordland, New Zealand

Kea in Fiordland, New Zealand

 * Reason: Good image
 * Articles in which this image appears:Kea
 * Creator:Mark Whatmough


 * Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Good EV. Not perfect at full size but acceptable --Muhammad (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Far from eye-catching, and doesn't have exceptional EV. The background is cluttered above the kea's head and is too similar to the subject in colouration, especially above its neck. I do like the level of detail visible, e.g. of the raindrops on its back, but that is not enough to compensate for the photo's failings. -- Avenue (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see this photograph of an adult Kea as a scientific illustration, and I think that you have missed the point that animals in the wild are often similar in colour to their background. Snowman (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Not really seeing where Avenue is coming from- high quality picture, shows well what the bird looks like in its natural environment. Not a bird I've seen before, so I learnt a lot. Also a pretty animal, but that's not important. J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I find keas fascinating. You may have learnt a lot from this image, but I think an excellent photo of the bird could say so much more. It lives in a visually interesting habitat (the mountains), which provides many opportunities for better backgrounds than this. (Foe example, see some of the other photos in the Kea article, such as File:KeaMacKinnonPass2006.jpg and File:Kea_on_Avalanche_Peak_-_cropped.jpg.) Even the previous infobox picture, File:Kea.jpg, which had a bland background, left it more blurry and unfocussed to show off the bird better. (That picture was replaced by this one just a few minutes before it was nominated here, so don't read too much into its current placement in the article.) And the bird's pose, looking away to something we can't see, leaves a lot to be desired too. As Sabine's Sunbird says, they're not that difficult to find or photograph. I'm sorry, but while it has nice detail, I see this photo falling a long way short of what I'd expect for a featured picture. -- Avenue (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I found this image showing the bird at a high resolution and moved quickly to place it on the page and nominate it. The parrot in "File:Kea.jpg" is a juvenile and so is not an obvious choice for the infobox image. The background has some rocks in the background, so it does look natural. I was thinking of this illustration as a biological illustration with encyclopaedic value rather than a idealised work of art. Snowman (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that you nominated it on the basis of encyclopaedic value rather than being a stunning image. -- Avenue (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is an excellent creative commons image with scientific value of a parrot that can only be found in the wild in New Zealand. I also nominated it because I thought it exceeded the featured image criteria, which would be self explanatory to anyone that had read the heading on this FP candidates page. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Nice image of far from common subject. Good and appropriate DOF -- Herby  talk thyme 17:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. With regards to the technical and logistical difficulties of photographing this species, this species is increasingly rare on South Island but it is still easy to find in tourist locations in the Southern Alps, in fact particularly in tourist locations. They are also very easy to photograph as they are exceptionally bold and unafraid and will actively approach people. As such they are probably one of the easiest wild parrots to photograph anywhere in the world, so that should be taken into account when considering the technical difficulties and excellence of this shot. It should be possible to take a much better photograph of this species, with better light and a less distracting background. Also, it should be noted that this is an adult, young birds have yellow nares. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  21:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be possible to obtain a much better photograph of many FA photographs of animals. I would be more impressed if you presented a creative commons image here of a Kea that is better than this one. Snowman (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you found a better one already, when you uploaded the photo on the right from Flickr. It's not FP quality either, but it's got more appeal and encyclopedic value in my view. Admittedly it's not as sharp, and is not high resolution, but the bird's posture, lack of dampness, and the way the lighting shows off the feather colours outweigh that for me. And yes, I agree it's possible to take a better photo than many FPs, but that seems like a red herring. The issue is whether the photo nominated here measures up to our FP standards. Looking through Featured pictures/Animals/Birds, I think it clearly falls short. How many photos of even slightly wet and bedraggled birds are listed there? -- Avenue (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The image that you linked has not got the resolution for a FP, and I would not even think about nominating that image of the Kea standing on what appears to be a man-made monotonous flat surface. Birds in the wild do get wet in the rain - the image description explains some wet feathers. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that photo's background is bland, and I was not for a moment suggesting that it was worth nominating. But I still feel it is a better photo than the nominated one, and I'm surprised at the support that one's received. Anyway, I'll shut up now. -- Avenue (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the somewhat inferior photograph that you have linked has harsh lighting, man-made and artificial looking flat background, and much lower resolution. I think it helps to enhance the wow factor of my nominated photograph, which I have used as the main scientific illustration on the species page. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

*Weak oppose. Per Sabine's Sunbird. The background is simply too distracting, unfortunately. Keas are very easy to find in New Zealand, as they frequent the carparks of South Island high country national parks, among other places. They're not shy. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC) -- Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Durova  403 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. I'm not worried about the bird being wet, but the background is unfortunate: slight lack of contrast and there's a distracting stone hanging above its head. Elekhh (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true that the background contains some of the colours similar to that of the parrot. I find it interesting to speculate that the Kea has evolved camouflage to blend in to the natural colours of the rocks and sparse green plants or mosses in the New Zealand Alps and wonder how the colour of this species might have influenced its survival. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It's interesting looking at the detail with it being wet and the background is a nice example of its camouflage.  upstate NYer  06:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I do have to disagree about light levels, which appear to be the result of drizzle. This is very typical for Fiordland, one of the wettest places on earth with over 330 days of rain a year, and up to 9000mm of rain. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * edit: Support. After another look at full size I'm now convinced it should be featured. It has detail and EV. And as noted, grey and dark wet weather is extremely common in much of this bird's range. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: To be fair, the thumbnail of the image does make it look dark, dull, and cluttered. But it improves readily upon being viewed full size.  Of course a better image can be taken (you can say that about pretty much anything), but this is the best that we have at the moment and it meets the requirements.   Mae din \talk 15:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is that being as you said "dark, dull, and cluttered" at standard size, few readers will have the interest to click on it to see it at full size, which I think ultimately affects its Encyclopedic Value. Elekhh (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I kind of appreciate where you're coming from, but I (personally) don't think EV should be "thumbnail" EV. The EV is there for anyone who wishes to open it and see it, and isn't defined as, "looks so good they want to click it"; in fact, because it shows the environment, and the dampness of the region, and the camouflage, it perhaps has heaps more EV than if it looked great in thumbnail.  You could argue that it's not a compelling image, though.  Just my perspective, of course, :)   Mae din \talk 07:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. While the similarity in color to the background is unfortunate, the image is vivid and the lighting is, in my opinion, spectacular (many voters seem to be looking for bright images, but lighting like this presents a more realistic portrayal). — the Man in Question (in question)  02:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)