Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Smooth-billed ani

Smooth-billed ani

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2017 at 21:17:59 (UTC)

Reason

IMO, it meets the FPC criteria and has very good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Smooth-billed ani

FP category for this image

Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – 1989 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - light is very flat, the bird is angled away from us, and there's actually not as much detail as I'm accustomed to seeing from bird FPs (relatively low resolution + subject fairly small in the middle of the frame), but the image is sharp and illustrates the species fairly well. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, you need flat light for black birds, otherwise the contrast is too extreme. I didn't understand 'fairly small in the middle of the frame'. I don't think this image should be cropped any more. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The quality of this image is much inferior to that of recent bird FPs. If photographers can manage extreme close ups of tiny and shy types of birds, there's no reason to promote a small and long-range shot of this bird. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You might not like it @Nick-D:, but it is not small and not especially long range. And are you an expert when it comes to which birds are shy? Obviously not. Please feel free to be critical, but please don't make unfounded statements which might influence other voters. For your information, small birds are often photographed when they come to feeders. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you hoping to achieve by being rude? Your recent photo of bee eaters is much more typical of FP-standard photos than this image and I wish you well with it. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologise for being rude, I just don't like being accused of incompetence. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can tell, Nick-D never questioned your competence. In fact, his comment was perfectly appropriate for the forum – it critiqued the image and not the contributor. Admittedly this wasn't a self-nom, so it may not have been your choice to subject yourself to scrutiny with this work, but it was clearly not meant to be personal. For what it's worth, I'm pretty much on the same page with regard to my impression of the image. I was waffling between "oppose" and "weak support", and ultimately decided that by all but the most strict standards, it's an adequately high-quality illustration. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per others – Jobas (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]