Reason

I need to give some feedback on GLAM-WIKI, since it'd be of interest to many people here, but I don't have time atm.

Articles this image appears in

Australian Magpie

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality, EV. What looks like slight motion blur in the legs but IMO not very distracting --Muhammad(talk) 12:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Nice image, but I'm not a huge fan of the directly facing the camera style. What does it's tail (out of focus and largely hidden here) look like? And there's the slight motion blur and fact that it's feet are covered by the grass (very small things). Mostly though, my issue is that the vast bulk of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds give examples at a quarter-turn or so such that you get a fuller picture of the subject (though occasionally some like File:Australian wood duck - male.jpg have made it). Given it's "Least Concern" conservation status it doesn't seem like a particularly rare specimen, so I think it can be held to slightly higher standards. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that all birds should be posed in the same way - it gets boring. I think it depends of the species and circumstances and I like some face on photos (the whistling duck one is my wallpaper right now). Also I want to take issue with you was the suggestion that "Least Concern" conservation status - or any conservation status, has any relevance to ease of photography. Least concern does not always imply common and even if it did common does not imply easy to photograph. Now this species is both common and bold as brass, but that isn't implied by its status. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize about the conservation status, my point was simply this is a reasonably common and easy species to photograph (as you note) so it's not unreasonable to ask for more detail. And I'm not saying all birds should follow a set style, but that this style of photo leaves out a great many details about the bird of high EV (shape of the body, tail, etc). Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Plumage differences are at the front mostly for juveniles... Noodle snacks (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm crazy, but I really feel like this picture could be taken again at a 45 degree angle and there'd be TONS more EV. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is the alt. The important differences in plumage aren't missing from the original as I understand it. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt. It's a much better picture, IMO. Perhaps it doesn't display the juvenile plumage differences, ok, then it's just a FP for the general article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Agreed that the alt is a better image as a frontal of a bird is a bit awkwawrd, but I just get the feeling that given a bit of time, you'll get a better composition than either of these. It would be nice to see the pose of the alt with the background of the original, for example. These are good, but not quite special enough IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support original – just a bit of motion blur short of full support. I'd very much like to see an explanation of the correct angle to shoot a bird (or any autonomous 3D object) from... especially for common species, we have more opportunity to record and illustrate them from differing angles. Look at any twitcher's manual and there are always different angles, depending on specific identifiers. This juvenile plumage is something I'd never seen before and carries a lot of EV, IMO. --mikaul^talk 22:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, contra Staxringold. There is scope to get featured images of both adults and juveniles - and this angle is great for showing the plumage of a young bird. An adult photo can show the side on view (and theer is no shortage of them in the article). Also per my above comments. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support either. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 193 FCs served} 22:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cracticus tibicen tibicen juvenile ANBG.jpg --wadester16 16:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and just so everyone knows, I ignored Staxringold's original weak oppose, as it was superseded by a support, even if that was for the alt. wadester16 16:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered by the decision you came to, but I don't think you should have ignored his weak oppose, because to me it sounded like he specifically voted support only for the alt, and didn't show any support for the original. As such, if you were to consider promoting the original, the support would be discounted and the weak oppose remains. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]