Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-winged Blackbird

Red-winged Blackbird

 * Reason:The picture shows a particular behavior of the species.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Red-winged Blackbird
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
 * Creator:CephasE


 * Support as nominator --Cephas (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I really like the unconventional pose/angle. Nautica Shad es  00:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, illustrates the bird clearly and attractively. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Hive001   contact  12:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good resolution, but in my opinion not enough shadow detail. ottojula (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. At the moment, I'm not convinced about the EV. This behaviour is not mentioned in the article except in the image caption, and the image is being used to illustrate the behaviour, not the bird itself. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC) For what it's worth, I have changed my oppose to strong oppose. We should not be in the business of promoting images that are not really being used to show anything of importance. Some of these supports would be valid only if this image was used as a lead, or as a "this is what the bird looks like", which it is not. In considering the EV of an image, we have to consider how it is used, and to what extent that use benefits the article and the project. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per ottojula. Additionally, it is not sufficiently cropped. Greg L (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support There is every reason for this to be the lead image, and an FP - focus is on the head, blown highlights are fewer and resolution larger than the current lead image, and unless you're going to do something HDR-looking, you can't lift the dark greys without blowing the red patch even more. This is what the bird looks like, end of story. And you even get a bit of typical habitat in the background, quoting the article: inhabits open grassy areas. It generally prefers wetlands. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So... You're supporting because you think it should be the lead image/would make a good lead image, when it is not the lead image? J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On what grounds are you supporting? J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Read it again, or ask someone to read it to you, please. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll read it again, removing any references to the lead image- as you say, you're not claiming EV as the lead image, as it is not the lead image. I am left with- "There is every reason for this to be ... an FP - focus is on the head, blown highlights are fewer and resolution large ... and unless you're going to do something HDR-looking, you can't lift the dark greys without blowing the red patch even more. This is what the bird looks like, end of story. And you even get a bit of typical habitat in the background, quoting the article: inhabits open grassy areas. It generally prefers wetlands." It would be reasonable to remove the references to the habitat, as this is not currently being used to illustrate that either. As such, we are left with some justification as to the quality of the image. I am not challenging the quality of the image, I am challenging the EV. Does this behaviour need to be illustrated? J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is sufficiently good on its own merit. It doesn't need to illustrate a unique behaviour. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But the whole nom is predicated on the behaviour, to quote the sole reason given: "The picture shows a particular behavior of the species." The image caption furthers this theme. --jjron (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. We have to base EV on how an image is used, otherwise we could have images not used in articles at all that are "sufficiently good" passing FPC. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is featured pictures, not featured captions. Please change your votes accordingly. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been criticising the caption; I have been criticising how it is used in the article, which is how we should judge the EV. This is Wikipedia's featured picture process, not "look at this pretty picture I found". Please change your votes accordingly. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I like it, but as stated above, the left side could be cropped out a bit. Haljackey (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If someone ever crop it, please make an alternate and distinctive picture as this one already has an FP on Commons. Thanks, --Cephas (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It appears up to FP standards, noting that the bird is a high contrast animal. Cowtowner (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Milburn. I quite like the image itself, but the caption here and the similar one in the article is clumsy and seems to identify a behaviour which is not discussed in the article and seems unlikely (e.g., it doesn't appear to me that the wings are being held away from the body). Given this is being nominated based on the behaviour illustrated, I have to oppose on EV. If these EV issues are fixed (and I think they need to be addressed whether an FP or not), you can 'neutralise' my !vote. --jjron (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisting comment: This is on the border between consensus and no consensus. There are two main issues that need to be finalized: 1) the encyclopedic value (EV) of the image, and 2) the possible need to crop the image. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I think the image definitely has a good EV despite the caption being somewhat clumsy, I would not be opposed to doing some cropping especially the space on the left side which skews the image but neither do I think it's a huge enough issue to oppose if it isn't cropped. Cat-five - talk 03:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way does it have good EV? J Milburn (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like the photo (and I supported it on Commons), but I agree that its EV is currently not evident in the article (including its caption there). If it's meant to illustrate this bird's well-studied "song spread display", I don't think it does this especially well. Compare it with the second image here, for instance. (Cropping the image would not change my !vote.) --Avenue (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)