Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Greylag Goose in St James's Park, London - May 2006.jpg

Greylag Goose

A Greylag Goose in St James's Park, London

Just throwing this image into the fray. I accept that it could be more encyclopaedic if the goose was standing up and its whole body including legs were visible, but I feel it is still high enough quality and pleasing to the eye to be worth a nomination.

• Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The detail is great. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-02 16:35
• Support. Encylopedic. -- bcasterline • talk 16:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Both greatly detailed and encylopedic. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Pleasing to the eye and encyclopedic. -Ravedave 18:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support What a handsome animal. --Mad Max 19:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Gorgeous. --Pharaoh Hound 19:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great photo. Froggydarb 22:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great photo. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Boring. not as good as a frog.211.30.199.85 07:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  (New user, whose only edits are on FPC, --Janke | Talk 07:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

• Support. Sharp, nice colors. How come geese and ducks often have that Mona Lisa expression? ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does not make a good thumbnail due to lack of contrast of main subject (esp. beak!) with nervous background. Also, shouldn't this have been nominated on Commons, since the nominator acknowledges it is not particularly encyclopaedic? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really; it IS used in an article, after all. --Golbez 17:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, most images don't look that great in a thumbnail, but I think this one looks as good, if not better than most as a thumbnail, and also, I said it could be more encyclopaedic if it was standing up. Not that it wasn't at all encylopaedic. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a lovely photo of the goose, but, for mine, it needs the legs to be truly encyclopaedic. I keep looking at it and thinking it is a really nice pic, but then I keep coming up with the same feeling about the missing legs/lower part of body. Compare it to some of the other (also really good) pics in the article to see what I mean. (BTW, I think the thumbnail looks fine). --jjron 11:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fantastic shot, but missing legs make it problematic. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• I think you're making too much out of the "missing legs". Should this image be unfeatured because there are no legs? What's the big deal about bird legs? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 02:23

• I have not carefully considered your pochard picture, but my gut response is that there is a reason for it to be missing the legs, i.e., it's swimming. Similarly if it was sitting on a nest, there would be a reason for legs not to be there, and it would be encyclopaedic for different reasons. To put it bluntly, this goose is just being lazy. --jjron 07:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Are lazy geese unencyclopaedic and unnatural? ;) The only thing that doesn't help this image is that part of the goose is obscured but I don't think the reason why is particularly important - whether it is swimming or sitting, it is still equally natural. However, I don't feel that a featured picture has to portray a subject definitively and completely if it is assisted by other (perhaps less spectacular) images in the article. A FP is just a lead image to an article, where a more complete overview of the subject can be found. Thats how I see it, anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thought you'd like the jibe about the lazy goose ;). And who said it was unnatural? I agree with what you say about the FP, of course no (or almost no) pic can portray all aspects of a subject. But some of us clearly feel the missing bits do matter in this case, and can't we have that opinion? Also I do think the reason matters, like just as a random example I would probably be far less likely to support a picture of a sleeping lion than a prowling lion, both with the same amounts of body missing. BTW, not sure if you wish to retract the part about FPs being the 'lead image to an article', as I notice lots of FPs and FPCs, even those attracting lots of supports right now (yes, including this one) are NOT the 'lead image' (and yes, I realise this was when you nominated it). But if you stick to that argument everyone here better retract their support right now. (And I said right from the start that I like the picture!). --jjron 06:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't plan on retracting my statement about FPs typically being a 'lead image', but I probably should clarify - I meant to say a lead-in image. I didn't mean they had to be the first image IN the article, I was refering to how most people come across the FP. They see it on the main Wikipedia page as the Featured Picture of the Day and decide to click on it and/or the corresponding hyperlinks to article(s) to find out more. Featured pictures wouldn't exist on wikipedia (at least not on the En Wiki - they would on Commons) without an article to contribute to. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't really mind to much the absence of the legs, but I find the strong background very distracting. A little suggestion (which of course you can utterly ignore) is to have shot this with your lovely 20-200m/f2.8 at full 200m at around f/5.6 - f/8. This I think would result in a more pleasing bokeh. Also maybe shooting from ground level may have helped. --Fir0002 www 10:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny, I rather like the background. I actually would prefer a deeper DoF, as I think the goose in the field of little flowers is quite attractive and adds a certain something to the image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. In what article(s) is this picture currently used? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Was that a rhetorical question? Actually, I just noticed that someone had decided to replace my image in the Greylag Goose article with an interesting but extremely low quality image of a goose landing, and decided to remove my image from the article completely, rather than move it to the gallery. This has since been fixed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah. I hadn't realized that the "goose in flight" was a new image. When people started talking about the "lead image", I wanted to check the greylag goose article and couldn't find your photo. I guess I should have just looked at the history. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great photo. Missing the legs is hardly a big deal. Iorek85 23:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support The legs aren't that bad, as you never see every feature of an animal (something will always be covered) and the background is only a teeny bit distracting. Absolutely great image. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support If I were to see this goose in real life, I would now be able to identify it. A nice, sharp, clear image. ~MDD4696 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sometimes I swear that "a great photo" really only equals "used a really good camera". Dull and uninspired image. --SeizureDog 11:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Just doesn't grab me. -- moondigger 18:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like it. --Life is like a box of chocolates 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. What SeizureDog said. Janderk 08:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - That is one beautiful goose! The lack of legs is really not as big of a deal as everyone is making it to be; it is definitely encyclopaedic, clear and natural. -MosheA 14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Greylag Goose in St James's Park, London - May 2006.jpg 15/7 discounting anon votes (please log in to vote) ~ Veledan • Talk 11:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)