Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae Tas.jpg

Silver Gull

Reason: Good quality, nice lighting. All important plumage shown, legs shown.
Articles this image appears in: Silver Gull, Chroicocephalus
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support EV is good but DOF is quite shallow, slight motion blur in the legs and plumage seems noisy. --Muhammad(talk) 05:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "EV" or "DOF"? I have seen that abbreviations have been used repeatedly in this page. I think you should avoid making abbreviations, or at least put the respective link to the page or section which the abbreviation means. --Woglinde 02 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well these are very common terms used at FPC, (Featured picture candidates). EV stands for encyclopedic value and DOF for Depth of Field --Muhammad(talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about "IMO"? - Damërung^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{__ΞΞΞ_} . -- 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.acronymfinder.com/ is often useful. It stands for in my opinion. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. IMO a poor pose for maximum enc. The head retracted posture is, while not uncommon, let's say atypical. Also the location, a pine fence railing, is not ideal. These suckers spend most of their time on the ground or water - as can be seen by their feet they're not well adapted for perching. Finally I'd like to congratulate you on blitzing an existing FP from not just both articles infoboxes but the articles themselves in order to put this in (come on Noodle, you know better than that). --jjron (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad on the "blitz". The other image didn't exactly look FP quality to me, but I should have checked. I feel it fair to point out that I ditched a number of images from that article. A shot in water would not show feet, and neither would most surfaces on the ground. Even the previous FP could be used to argue that perching is not entirely atypical. My bird book mentions that they may be found "many miles" from the sea too, which I'd consider empirically true. The name doesn't do me any favours though. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't have to convince me that they're found far from the sea (BTW how old or trite is your bird book? Miles?). And of course they don't always land on the ground - maybe something like a picnic table would be more enc though ;-). But a shot on the ground, perhaps ideally sand, would show the feet perfectly well with sufficient contrast in colours. Not commenting on quality per se as I haven't compared closely, but compositionally I do prefer the other image. --jjron (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Picnic table beside the sea stealing fish and chips would be most realistic. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - another very nice NS picture....but.....for such a common species a shot closer to perfection is needed. I don't like the pose, ISO has made some noticible noise and I think that camera shake (?) is evident in the legs. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per jjron --Fir0002 14:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current one is more interesting IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester 16 04:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]