Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Manorina melanocephala 2.jpg

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Noisy Miner edit

 
Original - Noisy Miner (M. melanocephala)
 
Alt
Reason
Meets requirements hopefully.
Articles this image appears in
Noisy Miner, Manorina
Creator
Noodle snacks
  • Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent. Everything important is in sharp focus. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry, but don't like the composition on this one. Unnatural background, especially since it produces the 'grey on grey' effect with the bird's feathers, and IMO the head positioning gives the bird an awkward pose. --jjron (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Well now, jjron said it better than I ever could.   Nezzadar ☎   13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As per comments above, the background is unfortunate. Elekhh (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support original Bird's not here for a beauty pageant (@jjron), and overall this is a pretty good shot. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no question about the sharp focus, but I do think that natural beauty is relevant to the topic, after all you wouldn't want to see a bird in a cage. Context is also important, and if you look to the image carefully you'll see that the bird is standing on a concrete slab (or similar), eating something which appears to be bread (I wouldn't suggest that this was provided by the photographer)... while the article states: Its typical diet consists of nectar, fruit and insects, and occasionally it feeds on small reptiles or amphibians.Elekhh (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you have to also understand that many birds have adapted to urban environments, and the Miner bird is one of them. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but we can't always expect to have only photos of birds in their natural, pre-urbanised environment. Of course we'd like to pretend that nature exists without any influence from humans, but that's unrealistic. If we provide them with easy pickings such as bread scraps(the article says that they are opportunistic), it's going to provide them with a new, non-natural habitat. But that doesn't make the photo any less truthful and representative. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noisy Miners have adapted better than other species to the point that they are considered pests: [1]. They are particularly dominant in parks etc because there is no dense foliage to harbour smaller birds (just trees and grass). I see them eat food found on the ground on a regular basis. I've added an alt, though the image quality is weaker. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure they did, and so they are the third most common species in Sydney ocurring in 60% of gardens [2]. While they sometimes walk on the pedestrian footpath, most of the time you see them in parks and gardens. So I would have imagined that is possible to capture a picture with a better background, and a more representative context, which the Alt just demonstrates. I find Alt much better. Elekhh (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As discussed though, this isn't necessarily more representative. Just a different aspect of the same bird's behaviour. Birds don't share your prejudice of unaesthetic locations for photography. ;-) I do agree that aesthetically, the alt is a little better, but the detail isn't quite as good. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can agree on that: an FA would present both a good pose (showing details) and be aesthetic (have a nice natural or urban background). Elekhh (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without wanting to start on OT debate, it's my observation that FPC has been erring recently towards "good technicals + sufficient EV = support" without much consideration to composition or setting, and TBH really only passing consideration to EV. As I indicate in my vote, a grey bird on asphalt isn't ideal. I agree with Elekhh that for a common bird we can probably expect something better for an FP, and given NS also suggests they are common where lives he will probably be providing that before long. I think his butterfly just above is an opportune example of this, where a poor sample (i.e., specimen, not photo) was promoted six months ago, and now he's provided something far superior, leaving a quite minor article with (what will be) two FPs + one former FP. This level of evaluation is one area I think standards have slipped at FPC in the last year or two. I ask you to look at this image without consideration of sharpness or other technicals and honestly ask yourself 'is this one of the best of the best bird images on WP?' The obsession with 'technical quality' at the expense of all else has understandably left various outsiders (and I'm sure some insiders) scratching their heads about much of the process. --jjron (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To an extent I think you're right, but I think the question that should be asked is "Is this an image that I can learn a lot from?", not "is it the best bird image on WP?". With bird images, a high level of detail is important, as is behaviour and environment, but I don't think aesthetics are quite as important as those. It certainly helps, but (IMO) we're here to identify photos that add a lot of value to articles. I think they can do that without being 'pretty', sometimes. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already learned that the Noisy Miner eats bread and walks on footpaths. I also know now that it hides well in a grey environment, although I read that's not characateristic. Further I learned that it cannot wash its back, hence it's covered all over with white dots (was it mining in bread again?) ... Now imagine one navigates on Wiki and sees Alt (or similar), wow what a nice bird! let's read.... Elekhh (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jjron, after all the resistance to including scales in images, you're going to suggest that we err on the side of EV? I don't see it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see the relation to my comment (I don't think I've ever commented on use of scales); but anyway, my point is there's a number of factors to be considered, but the focus has erred primarily towards technicals. --jjron (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be on the FPC talk page. In fact, I am going to start a thread there right now. Please go contribute there, as this is a very important discussion.   Nezzadar ☎   21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also oppose ALT for the tail feather being obscured by the unidentified yellow object.   Nezzadar ☎   21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original, weak support ALT Has some composition issues as mentioned above, but its still a good illustration. ~ Arjun 20:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt. Quality of the image makes up for the slight obscuring of tail feathers IMO. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Manorina_melanocephala_2.jpg&oldid=1138501373"