Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Canada goose gosling

Canada goose gosling[edit]

Stumbled across this image of the head of a baby canadian goose in the Canada Goose and Goose articles. The picture is of high resolution and clear crisp quality. I believe it perfectly exemplifies the featured picture criteria.

Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. This picture is relatively good quality and pleasing to the eye, but the shallow depth-of-field is a bit too much for me. NauticaShades^(talk) 07:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. It's nice, but not great. As Nauticashades mentioned, the DOF is a bit too narrow. I would like it to be higher resolution, I concede that it's well above the requirements, but it feels quite small (perhaps because a lot of the resolution is horizontal). The "flat" lighting doesn't help either, it looks as though taken on a cloudy day, and it doesn't show texture well. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks amaizing. One of the few pictures in wich the shallow DOF actually improves the understanding of the subject. I wasn't aware that goose had teeth.Nnfolz 14:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too-shallow DOF and cropped/framed too tightly, both of which hurt the informational value of the image, IMO. An image that shows an entire gosling in focus would be more encyclopedic. Side note - geese don't have teeth. I don't think any birds do. -- Moondigger 15:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar picture of a cheetah head was just promoted. So i don't see why a shot cropped of only a gosling head can't. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a close nomination, however. NauticaShades^(talk) 16:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say this picture couldn't be promoted. I oppose it for the stated reasons, but others support it. At the end somebody will evaluate the "support" and "oppose" votes along with everybody's comments and will make the decision. Also, it doesn't matter whether other superficially similar images have been promoted or not. We evaluate each image on its own merits. You'll note I didn't vote on the Cheetah image, but might well have opposed it if I had. -- Moondigger 17:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't mean that as an attack against you Moondigger -ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't take it as an attack. I apologize if the way I worded my reply made it seem that way. -- Moondigger 17:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good quality, detailed and of an appropriate size. It also does a good job of illustrating a gosling, which is most important. 213.106.164.150 19:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Note: Votes/comments from anonymous posters are not counted here. Please login and re-sign your entry with ~~~~ to have your vote counted. -- Moondigger 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose per Moondigger.--ragesoss 20:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Basically there's a lot of minor things that I think prevent this from being FP material. With just a little bigger size, a little better focus, a little larger DOF, and a little more of the subject shown I would support. But since that's not the case, I'll have to oppose. --Tewy 23:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Shades --Ineffable3000 15:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Narrow depth of focus, subject is overly cropped. HighInBC 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Moondigger doniv 17:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Moondigger. Also, the Cheetah image mentioned has far more of the Cheetah in the shot than this does. I still think it's cropped unencyclopedically, but it provides more information. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The DOF doesn't bother me, but I don't like how the background is almost the same color. I think it needs a little more contrast. howch e ng {chat} 21:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looking at the criteria, it meets 1,2,4,5,6,7 & 9. Partially meets #8 - it could use a more descriptive caption on the image page. #3 always throws me - best work? It's the only gosling photo in either the Goose or Canada Goose articles. It's high enough resolution to see detailed ridges on the beak. Is that unique enough? Criteria count: 7.5 out of 9 is a full support. — Zaui (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]