Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Strix-varia-005.jpg

Barred Owl


The picture is large, clear, sharp, and is very pleasing to the eyes. The picture looks unique and is of very high quality, and makes the Barred Owl article look very good. Along with the previous qualities, it is also infomative. It clearly allows viewers to see a Barred Owl, in a natural setting. The picture was created by Mdf.

NOTE: a larger version has been uploaded and is (3072x2048) if you dont see this force a refresh in your browser
 * Nominate and support. - Dark jedi requiem 20:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a lovely picture, but it's a little smaller than the generally accepted standard for featured pictures (see WP:WIAFP). Maybe you could contact the uploader and see if he has a larger one that he would be willing to upload? Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a wonderful photo, but the resolution just isn't high enough. If high-res version is uploaded, I'll change to support. -- Zantastik  talk  22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Change to Support of new, higher-res version.-- Zantastik   talk  21:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Size. -- Tewy  23:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It has a high level of detail, good composition, and is encyclopedic. -- Tewy  21:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per above. --Midnight Rider 02:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As has already been said, too small, but very nice. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm still getting the small version when viewing it full sized, but even the preview image looks substantially better. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just clear your page cache, and it should give you the larger version. Nautica Shad e  s  19:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Support The pic I get by clicking on the thumb is 800 px across which is fine. However the supposedly big one at 1536px across (which would be big enough) is actually 768 px across (which is not big enough). Is my browser (IE6) playing tricks? Weird! Something has happened in the half hour since I wrote that and now I get the 1536 pic - Adrian Pingstone 13:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I'm getting it at full size (1536px) and it is a great picture! - Alvesgaspar 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support now that we have a bigger one. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still just getting the smaller version. Tried clearing the page cache and reloading the photo page itself. If I get to see the higher res version then I'll support.  Can someone verify that this has not reverted to the smaller version, or is it my browser? --Bridgecross 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * IE6 is giving me the 1536 pic just fine - Adrian Pingstone 15:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it, and Support —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bridgecross (talk • contribs).
 * Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment My laptop is bringing up the 1000+ Dark jedi requiem 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. If you are getting the small version, it's definitely a browser issue. Mdf just uploaded a larger version .  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose edit 1. The composition of the original is much better.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The high-resolution version is much better. Nautica Shad e  s  19:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Towsonu2003 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * support nice. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Great photo. N4nojohn  21:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fantastic photo. Hello32020 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for all the points enumerated by the nominator. ~MDD4696 18:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I like the off-center composition, the muted background, and the focus is just in the right plane. --Janke | Talk 16:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 and Original I thought a crop can help since much of the space adds nothing to the subject. But still it doesn't make a big difference for me. Also changed the colors a bit --Arad 00:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit 1' &mdash; I feel the cropping is excessive; the original shot is perfect as it is. ♠ SG →Talk 06:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support original, oppose edit 1' ack SG - Alvesgaspar 08:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit 1 – I like the use of the rule of thirds in the original; it brings a sense of lonliness, quietness, or wildness (as in free animal, not crazy) to the owl which the straight-on crop does not exude. The close crop is good for a scientific discussion of the species, but the original is better to demonstrate their -- character, for lack of a better word. — E  ditor at L arge  ( speak )  17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit 1. The original strikes me as more intersting, compositionally. -- Zantastik  talk  06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original for superior composition. -- Countdown Crispy  (  ? 07:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original i like the full context; lovely.Harborsparrow 19:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original and Oppose Edit 1. The original is so striking, the edit loses my interest.--DaveOinSF 06:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

 howch e  ng   {chat} 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)