Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Image:Juvenile White-bellied Sea-eagle.jpg

Juvenile White-bellied Sea-eagle edit

Original - Juvenile White-bellied Sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) over the Derwent River, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Reason: Clear image of a wild Juvenile White-belied Sea-eagle that I was lucky enough to have fly past me relatively close. Not geolocated as it was photographed from my garden.
Articles this image appears in: White-bellied Sea-Eagle
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Support Great image, used in an article, has EV, etc. The geolocation is the only problem. I'll gladly support if you geolocate it (criteria 5). Elucidate ^{(light up)} 12:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's there already is good enough given the privacy concerns. MER-C 12:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I geolocated it fairly approximately (which is reflected in the number of significant figures in the tag). Noodle snacks (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing worth adding, since the criteria probably still have some evolution to go. The "where relevant" I added for geolocation should be changed to photographs of places (Architecture, Landscapes, Statues, etc) since it isn't particularly important for animals that move around anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC(

Alright. Thanks. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 13:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I liked you other ones before this and I was going to change my vote to support for one of them. But this one I don't think is clear enough:-Adam (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this vote is related to my stalker comment, then it'd be more productive to message me about the matter. Otherwise I'd ask you to clarify your vote and how it relates to the criteria. The image is a bit on the noisy side, but the resolution is quite reasonable (2.5mpix) and technical quality isn't on the VP criteria. I don't think any defining characteristic of a juvenile white-bellied sea-eagle isn't shown clearly. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. I am allowed to give my opinion just like anyone else. The other image that I mentioned above was the one that you provided me with a link to. I was about to change my vote to support but the image was nominated so it was a little late:-Adam (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While your opinion is appreciated, it would be preferred if your vote was based on the valued picture standards and criteria, rather than merely being an unsubstantiated opinion that has not been elaborated on. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 13:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I had some qualms about the lighting, but at fullsize it's good. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality showing a juvenile. Fletcher (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Juvenile White-bellied Sea-eagle.jpg --Elucidate ^{(light up)} 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]