Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pelican lakes entrance02.jpg

Australian Pelican
A nice portrait of an Australian Pelican, taken at Lakes Entrance, Australia.

'''Note: Obviously, there is consensus for promotion of this image. However, the decision on which version is unclear. Voters, pelase clarify your votes. Alternatively, a third edit could be made that is rotated, but no overly bright.'''


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support due to a lack of objections to it --Ineffable3000 07:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great picture (but I'm fairly sure it needs a small anticlockwise rotation - Adrian Pingstone 08:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Either Great pose! • Le  on  11:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Another excellent shot from Fir002. --Bridgecross 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, impressive. - Mailer Diablo 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support . Sharp and encyclopedic. But per Adrian Pingstone about the rotation. -- Tewy  23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support either. The original is sharp and very nice, but tilted. Edit 1 is a little to bright (compared to the original), but not tilted. So both have their own problems that I think could be fixed in a third edit, if that's not too much trouble to create. -- Tewy  05:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (Would support a third edit that's rotated and not so bright). -- Tewy  19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Wow, an excellent picture! I agree with Arpingstone about the rotation, just don't make it ruin the quality of the picture.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   10:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've uploaded an edit with rotation from my original file. I had forgotten to save the editing I had done to make the original version (Image:Pelican lakes entrance02.jpg) so Edit 1 my look a little different in terms of color/lightness etc. Hopefully this is not too much of a problem, but if it is I can easily rotate Image:Pelican lakes entrance02.jpg or try edit "Edit 1" to look more like it. Sorry if that is all a bit confusing. --Fir0002 11:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Original. Or a rotation of the original, as edit 1's feathers are too white, in my opinion. Nautica Shad e  s  17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - lovely. Either original or edited version (fir0002 can pick). Stevage 13:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either version Exellence at it's best. | A ndonic O  Talk 20:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either I can barely tell the difference, let alone decide which is better (maybe that makes me a heathen). Terri G 14:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either Gmip 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely support for great picture, impressive. Daniel5127 (Talk) 03:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Whichever Fir0002 prefers. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ...So much for consensus... ;-) -- Tewy  05:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I delegate my authority to the closer for the choice of the version to promote... Alvesgaspar 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Awesome! Mike 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original, I don't see any improvment after rotation. wtfunkymonkey 06:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original I don't think the rotation improves the image. In edit 1, the light adjustment is just too bright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krowe (talk • contribs).
 * Support original per Krowe. --Yarnalgo 01:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * support- A third edit, with original rotation, the second one is not dynamic enough-with the horizontal line across it comes off as a snapshot, very static- but without the glare of the first, which is a bit bright.Resonanteye 08:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either version per quality of picture. Sharkface217 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 06:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)