Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plegadis falcinellus (aka) background blurred.jpg

Glossy Ibis

 * Reason:Very encyclopedic picture.
 * Articles this image appears in:Glossy Ibis
 * Creator:Aka


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Bewareofdog 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Debivort 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a version with background blurred. Thoughts? Debivort 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose because of the second bird in bg - it totally spoils the thumbnail, and is distracting in full size. Who's gonna photoshop... no, just kidding! --Janke | Talk 06:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak support for alt. 1 - now the bird stands out. --Janke | Talk 08:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support The other bird is distracting, but it's not too bad.--HereToHelp 15:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 Clearly superior.--HereToHelp 20:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose the whole background is distracting. Maybe it could be blurred by computer? --jacobolus (t) 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Background is distracting, crop is too tight. Alvesgaspar 07:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Background looks better now. Alvesgaspar 07:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support Excellent focus and color on the main subject, the bird. I agree, however, that the background is very distracting in the thumbnail, though not as bad in the full size. Some photoshop blurring may help, thought it's hard to say. --Asiir 12:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alt 1 is better, though due to the low contrast between back- and foreground, my vote remains a weak support. --Asiir 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't find the background too much of a problem. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit Only problem for me was the distracting background. ShadowHalo 12:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit Good job with the blurring; it looks much better. · AndonicO Talk 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit. It looks a little weird in the thumbnail (probably because it loses a lot of detail), but as a large image it works very well. Great colour on the bird in both images. Amphy 13:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, prefer original. I think the edit looks unreal - have you dulled the colours of the background also?  The grass in the foreground is well lit and vibrant, as is the bird, but the background looks like its been bleached.  The nearer rock also appears to blend too much into the background, particularly underneath the birds' tail feathers.  Sorry to be so picky, but I feel that the original is good and so am predisposed to be tough on any edits. |→ Spaully₪† 09:02, 6 May 2007 (GMT)
 * Support original. There's nothing wrong with a bright background. Theonlyedge 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: I think that the background is distraction enough that some of the feather details of the bird is missing ... Kalyan 06:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

--YFB ¿  13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)