Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Prothonotary Warbler

Prothonotary Warbler

The bird itself has a very striking coloration, especially for a non-tropical bird, and this image captures the bright coloration very well in a high-resolution profile. Comparable to Image:Sitta-carolinensis-001 edit.jpg, a current featured picture of similar size and quality (but of a different bird). It appears in Prothonotary warbler and List of Kansas birds and was taken by User:Mdf.

Nominate and support. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 02:10 UTC
Oppose. Pretty picture, but not particularly striking. The framing and composition are boring, and the bracelet on the bird's leg detracts from the picture. --Zambaretzu 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fir's edit. I find the colors striking. And the picture, being quite clear, has definite encyclopedic value. bcasterline t 03:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The diagonals of the tree trunk and the bird's posture give some small interest and the yellow is indeed eye-catching. Not a picture that makes me jump around in wild excitement, though. --Surgeonsmate 03:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fir's edit ~~Are you serious? This is a gorgeous photo. ~~Could probably do with a little sharpening though~~. --liquidGhoul 09:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support Diliff's edit It has less noise in the lower right hand corner. --liquidGhoul 05:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent photograph. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The grey background to the right is very noisy, or has dithering artefacts or something. Can someone with some expertise tell me what's going on there, and whether it can be fixed? Stevage 11:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support My Edit. Sensational Picture. We really need to nominate more pix of Mdf's as they are all really good (Canon 1DS Mark II !)--Fir0002 www 11:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but now there seem to be a lot of JPEG artefacts in the background? I know, I'm never happy. :) Agree that Mdf's stuff is great. Stevage 14:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fir's edit. I actually think the dull background helps the image as it serves to highlight the bird's bright colouration. --Yummifruitbat 11:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful picture. Iorek85 12:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, even with minor background blemishes. Great photo. I suspect photos like these are under-appreciated because we're so used to seeing them taken by professionals. When Wikipedians take them, we should give them the respect they deserve. Stevage 14:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It's either a captive bird or being studied for something (note the leg tag)... I'd prefer that it didn't have that, but I'm not sure it's worth opposing over it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Often, birds are simply tagged and then released in order to track migrations. I think almost a quarter of all birds in the US are currently tagged that way. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 15:55 UTC

Interesting, we have two extremes: those who want all photographs to come from zoos, ideally with the cage's caption so we can be sure it's really that bird (not original research), and those that want the photos to be totally natural and thus not have tags or look as though the animal is caged. I have no opinion. Stevage 17:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Flip this upside down and you almost have today's featured picture. howch e ng {chat} 19:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for edit 2 as a preference. It sucks to waste a Canon 1Ds Mk II's resolution on a 1024x1024 image. Perhaps he can upload a higher res version. Excellent image, though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. Beautiful! Superb resolution, good detail, nice saturation. --Pharaoh Hound 00:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. I was looking for high quality photos of this species, and lo and behold, here's the wikipedia image! Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Nic pic but it's a pity about the ankle rings. Stevage, I'm not sure which nomination you are referring to, but you won't find many examples of your first extreme. In my experience images are far more likely to fail for looking unnatural/in a zoo ~ Veledan • Talk 21:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First edit. Color and clarity good. Natural setting is a plus also.--Dakota ~ 06:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to remove the metall ring. Is it better? Can anybody remove the green ring?Olegivvit 12:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Metall ring removed~~
Strong Support Original Great picture and very colorful -- BWF89 12:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]