Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Swan Goose

the swan goose is not white it is black with brown



This Swan Goose photograph illustrates avian anatomical structures in detail. Photo credit appears on the image page. Currently used in Beak, and will be used in the eponymous bird article.


 * Nominate and support. - Outriggr 05:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * support. - Although it would be better if the light were coming from the this side illuminating the birds face and of course the beak knob - Phreakdigital 19:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, the lighting would be better that way, but aesthetically, I think it's better this way. The crests of light seem to give the picture a certain reality. Outriggr 09:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Lovely, keep them coming outrigger! I might upload a few myself. Have you tried convincing the photographer to join wikipedia? --Fir0002 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't asked him, but have explained the WP project. I hate to keep bugging him for higher-res versions, but apparently he receives many requests. Outriggr 09:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Great, technically and the subject. --Dschwen 06:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - great photo. I'm not exceptionally fond of the lighting, but the detail is great. Stevage 10:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, largely because it is hard to believe this bird belongs to the Swan Goose species (Anser cygnoides) as named and described in the article. Perhaps it is just that the article is lacking a lot of detail on variations. As an illustration purely of 'beak' I find it a little misleading as the 'knob' structure is highly unusual. Now, if there was an article about that knob, or it was well described in the Swan Goose article, it would be great (i.e., what's it for? Is it for vocalisation, sexual display, just a weird mutation, etc? Why do some have it, and some such as in the existing photo, not have it?)... --jjron 16:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This confused me too; this species is highly domesticated and while I have found references to domesticated white varieties, the photog said this goose was in the wild. At any rate, it's included in "Beak" because the knob is part of the rhamphotheca, which redirected to Beak, and is mentioned in the article. Here is one quick photographic confirmation of the species issue. Outriggr 16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also found other images suggesting that this is the bird you say before opposing, but it still doesn't gel with the article. For a while I thought maybe the existing photo in the article was a misidentified Anser anser, but possibly not. Oh, and I don't oppose it being in beak, I just don't think it is a typical representation of beak; and yes, the knob is mentioned in the beak article, but nowhere is the purpose (if any) of it described. It looks like this is going to get promoted, but to me it's weird to have a FP that is totally at odds with the species description in its article. --jjron 12:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I'd prefer to see just a bit more of the beak (the tip) in focus. Otherwise it's a good representation of "the knob". -- Tewy  03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm beginning to wish "the knob" had a technical name, but I haven't found one. :-) Outriggr 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I enjoy the "the knob" as the technical name for this anatomical feature - Phreakdigital 06:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(+6.5/-1) -- Moondigger 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)