Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indian peacock displaying

Reason: This is a much better depiction of a peacock displaying than the existing FP (sorry, Fir...)
Articles this image appears in: Sexual selection, Peafowl
Creator: User:BS Thurner Hof
Nominator: Alvesgaspar

Support — Alvesgaspar 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree that this is probably the best of the bunch. Just slightly better composition than Fir0002's. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree, this is better than Fir's, because the aspect ration is way better (It also fits normal screens) and the composition is better. But i wish we could had a little bit of the legs too (for enc reasons). --Arad 18:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support IV. S .D. ¿п? § 00:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yyyeeeaaahhhh...this one is better than Fir0002's. I wish we had an animation of this display; since seeing them in England I learned that they curve the tails over a female and SHAKE it. --Iriseyes 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Booksworm Talk to me! 08:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Very nice picture[reply]
Weak-ish Support Needs more legs.
Noclip 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose. While this is a stunning photo, for enc reasons animal photos require the whole animal to be in the shot, not cut off at the edges. As a bird that can be easily reshot, I have to oppose.
Pstuart84 Talk 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose per Pstuart. It's cut off on every side, and I can barely see anything of the body. There's a bit of blur on the right side too. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 19:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Much too tightly cropped. --dm ^(talk) 06:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It may be better than Fir's but it is badly cut off. like 40% of the bird isn't there. -Fcb981 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]