Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hay bale with bird.jpg

Hay Bale with bird edit

Hay bale with bird

I got up at dawn to get this photo and I think it came out quite well. The bird was a bonus.

Support Self Nom --Fir0002 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bland, not stunning. --Dschwen 00:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quite a nice photo, but not really stunning. A polarizer might have given a nice effect. 84.9.223.82 00:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. FPC's on Wikipedia don't necessarily need to be captivating. But nonetheless, I think this is a great photo -- it's in a high resolution, and has good lighting and nice scenery. -JPM 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the fact that all the colors are rather muted enhanced the photo. Dylan 02:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't really think the bird should be named in the picture caption, it is rather small and not obvious. I like the hay bale though, its a good image and looks interesting, especially to a person who has never seen one before! --Ali K 10:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I like how the bale is in focus and it's surroundings aren't. And it's quite informative for people who are used to square hay bales or who haven't seen any at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An amazingly crisp image. enochlau (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haystack looks worse in reality than in the photo. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bland and boring. The bird's distracting. Zafiroblue05 14:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Boring this ain't! I think it's quite a lovely shot. Also, it's a perfect depiction of the subject matter. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It lacks that something special. Background color is similar. --84.134.24.181 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to have a fake "aged" appearance. Might just be the dawn light's effect. - Bevo 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . Close, but with seven supporters (eight including nominator) and four opposers (five including the anon) I can't say there was consensus to promote. Raven4x4x 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]