Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-headed Finch

Red-headed Finch
Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2010 at 22:25:19 (UTC)
 * Reason:Compelling composition, very eyecatching shot, lovely little animal. The article is underdeveloped, but that's due to our general bad coverage of Africa-related topics.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Red-headed Finch
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
 * Creator:Hans Hillewaert

Which one? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support even though it could have a slightly better EV if the legs and tail were shown, this has an awesome composition. Why is this hosted as a delist nom? Nergaal (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I'm an idiot. I'll fix it. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support I like the "spotlight effect" on the bird. Too bad the legs aren't shown and tail is out of focus; I would have fully supported it otherwise. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support spotlight effect is nice Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 7:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 *  Conditional support  if carefully denoised, in other ways per Pteronura brasiliensis. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've requested it at Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice you've lightened as well as denoised- was that intentional? J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Screen tilt mate. Use tabbed browsing please. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion advertised here. J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia is especially weak on Africa, so as well as being a great pic it helps to redress the balance  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * SupportI like the spotlight effect, too.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I like the lighting effect... doesn't affect the illustrative value of it for the species. — raeky  t  02:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go with the original simply because the edit didn't just denoise but also tinted everything slightly yellow... — raeky  t  05:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. View them in tabs, for gods' sakes! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did with my macboook pro, I'm not a novice, I didn't directly compare in Photoshop, but I can if you'd like, but I suspect it will yield the same results. — raeky  t  22:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I take the edit, better contrast. The sand is brighter than the sand in the original photo. Also the shadow of the edit bird is clearer as the shadow of the original bird; there it is a little bit blurry. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had intended to oppose the original because it was far too noisy. The edit fixes that without any drawbacks and is imo the one that should be promoted.   Mae din\ talk 11:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit. I hadn't even noticed the noise until I compared it to the edit. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t matter. Flip a coin. Greg L (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)