Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/European Magpie
European Magpie edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2011 at 19:47:39 (UTC)
- Reason
- Large image used in three articles, showing the bird in its environment
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mirror test, European Magpie, Magpie
- FP category for this image
- Birds
- Creator
- Pete Birkinshaw from Manchester, UK at http://www.flickr.com/people/93001633@N00
Support as nominator-- Pine (was GreenPine) talk 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)- Oppose, sorry, I'm not at all sold on this. The shot is a little dark, the branch covering the bird is a little distracting, the road and car in the background are problematic, the focus is slightly off, and to round everything off, the bird is dirt common. I really don't think this is FP material. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Milburn, and I also think this really doesn't belong in Magpie, which had three pictures of the same species when the article covers four different genera. I've replaced it. Chick Bowen 02:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Milburn, I thought we agreed that the significance or insignificance of a subject was irrelevant to whether a photo had FPC value. The branch doesn't bother me, and the road and car show the bird in a realistic urban environment. Also, I don't see the focus problem, the details of the bird's feathers are very distinct. Pine (was GreenPine) talk 06:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The significance or insignificance of the subject is certainly not a factor- I by no means mean to imply "this is a common bird, therefore I don't care". However, for highly common subjects, the pictures are very replaceable. We will (and, I feel, must) expect something special if we're going to feature pictures of common species (magpies, housecats, daisies) or objects (sinks, lightbulbs), or what have you. The flip side, of course, is that we are willing to overlook defects in particularly rare or irreplaceable photographs. For instance, one of my favourite FPs is this one; while there are a number of flaws with the photograph itself, the species is extinct, and so the picture is completely irreplaceable, and we should be showing it off as much as we can. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- That explanation makes more sense. Thank you for clarifying your comments. Pine (was GreenPine) talk 20:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The significance or insignificance of the subject is certainly not a factor- I by no means mean to imply "this is a common bird, therefore I don't care". However, for highly common subjects, the pictures are very replaceable. We will (and, I feel, must) expect something special if we're going to feature pictures of common species (magpies, housecats, daisies) or objects (sinks, lightbulbs), or what have you. The flip side, of course, is that we are willing to overlook defects in particularly rare or irreplaceable photographs. For instance, one of my favourite FPs is this one; while there are a number of flaws with the photograph itself, the species is extinct, and so the picture is completely irreplaceable, and we should be showing it off as much as we can. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose It is out of focus, underexposed, the background isn't so good and there is quite a bit of foliage in the way. I gather it is pretty common in gardens and so on, and it isn't unlikely that someone will do better sooner or later. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the focus problems that you're seeing, maybe I need glasses. I agree the lighting could be better. Between your comments and Milburn's expanded explanation, I'll withdraw support and let this speedy close. Pine (was GreenPine) talk 20:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The plane of focus contains that small branch which obscures the wing in a small way. The bird is behind that. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the focus problems that you're seeing, maybe I need glasses. I agree the lighting could be better. Between your comments and Milburn's expanded explanation, I'll withdraw support and let this speedy close. Pine (was GreenPine) talk 20:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not as aesthetically pleasing as most of the other featured pics. Atomician (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Atomician, aesthetics are not a primary criteria for evaluating featured pictures. "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide." EV and technical qualities are more important. Pinetalk 08:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is not any of the above mentioned. It's an image of a bird which could have been taken in a better picture to become aesthetically pleasing. The reason why it isn't has been mentioned above, but I'll go again if you want. There is an awkwardly placed car in the background, there is a not so nice blur and there is a small branch in the way of the bird. The image is also slightly too dark. Atomician (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Atomician, aesthetics are not a primary criteria for evaluating featured pictures. "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide." EV and technical qualities are more important. Pinetalk 08:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy close per nominator's suggestion. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)