Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pitta cyanea 2 - Khao Yai.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 01:55:58 (UTC)

Reason: Beautiful and hard to see. Only found in dim light on the jungle floor. This and one other shot I took are the only photos on commons of the species.
Articles in which this image appears: Blue Pitta
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not super-sharp, but visually striking and I'm happy to take your word about the difficulty of the shot, which mitigates the possible quality issues. J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I kinda prefer the other one. Any reason you chose to nominate this one? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Better view of the plumage on wings and tail. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright. Weak support on that account, although if this is a ground dwelling bird a picture of it on the ground would naturally have more EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - (It's on the root of a tree) JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thought so, but not readily apparent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Can be made apparent by adding it to the image description perhaps?Abudhar (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pictures as always by this editor. Sharp, and can see the head clearly. Colours are also well balanced.
(on the arctic ice) 09:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Short for "I support as the nominator does", perhaps? Support as per the nominator would be the way that was normally said around here, Arctic Kangaroo! J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's was what I meant. Thanks for telling me, it's my first time voting here. Changed to support.

Support. Sharpness isn't great, but good enough given the conditions. Is it possible to tell if this is a male or female? Kaldari (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a male - the female plumage is duller, essentially. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article could do with a little bit of information, the like of which you have provided, and more.Abudhar (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nomAbudhar (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It looks like a flash was used and this was a high end camera to capture a subject that's found only in difficult conditions for photography, but I don't think that I can call this among Wikipedia's best work due to the sharpness issues. --Pine^✉ 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has some details but meh; great EV. —
²¹ 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]