Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Northern Carmine Bee-eater (2nd nom)

Northern Carmine Bee-eater (2nd nom)
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2012 at 16:12:10 (UTC)
 * Reason:Trying to address the concerns in the previous nom, I'm putting the version where green spots have been reduced to minimum (upper image). The lower image (alt crop) appeared in the 1st nom.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Northern Carmine Bee-eater (upper image)
 * FP category for this image:Birds
 * Creator:Lviatour


 * Support as nominator -- Brand meister t   16:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a really beautiful photo, but it looks like the sky is riddled with jpeg artifacts.  upstate NYer  17:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, something has definately gone wrong in making this crop. The sky has gained some very strong artefacts. - Zephyris Talk 20:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes. I adressed this in the previous nom too. The file size is obviously too small for such a resolution. O.J. (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Both are fixed. The online stuff turned out to be unreliable in this sense. Brand meister  t   00:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Alt crop. O.J. (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm bothered by the fact the the head (and to some extent the tail) of the bee-eater on the right is out of focus.  God Emperor Talk  13:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a tad bit grainy on that log. Otherwise I would have nominated this already on Commons. Pteronura brasiliensis 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per original nom --Fir0002 04:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Alt crop, per previous nom. Kaldari (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Alt crop My concerns in the previous nom have been addressed. Looks good!
 * Not sure why I forgot to sign my !vote. Clegs (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

-- Extra   999  (Contact me) 16:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 supports, 2 oppose -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 16:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This one should have been promoted, right? O.J. (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There were 5 supports (including the nominator), which is the minimum criteria, since there was no clear-cut consensus. Apart from that you had 2 opposes, which tilts it to not promoted. Although, I would like to see the thoughts of more experienced editors here. -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 08:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 5/7 is more than a two-third majority in support. There's an ongoing discussion about this case at the FPC talk page. O.J. (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

--J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Closure overturned as per the consensus at the talk page discussion. Five in support, over a two-thirds majority, clear consensus. J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)