Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Rainbow lorikeet.jpg

Rainbow Lorikeet edit

Original - Rainbow Lorikeet perched on a branch

Reason: High quality image of a beautiful bird
Articles this image appears in: Rainbow Lorikeet
Creator: Fir0002

Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice composition and detail. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and EV. IMO requires a NR though --Muhammad(talk) 08:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Adds a lot to the article, nice photo, good EV. |→ Spaully ^τ 09:15, 2 July 2009 (GMT)
Weak support Head detail and great colour carry it; I don't think more DOF would have made a big improvement. I find the composition a little affected, though; one of those where a centered crop would be more impressive. --mikaul^talk 12:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 14:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent shot and beautiful subject.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per above, what a great colours. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{__Ξ_} . -- 15:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very beautiful picture, with vivid colors. --Carioca (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition, great colors! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm such a party pooper, but the colours look oversaturated to me. Was this taken with flash? (Hmm, looking closely, I think it was - there's a slight shadow from the branch on its belly.) Stevage 02:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it used a small amount of fill flash. But the colours are quite natural - it's an incredibly colourful bird. cf flickr --Fir0002 10:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I've seen plenty :) That's why I was curious. Stevage 08:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rainbow lorikeet.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]