Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/House Sparrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] House Sparrow

For a relatively common bird it is surprising that there are nearly no good photos of it on commons or elsewhere. That said, despite being pretty tame, they are still tricky subjects to photograph. I particularly like the posture of the bird in this image.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing quality and encyclopedic value. It's featured in my book. NauticaShades 10:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Definetly does the job in my book. Staxringold _talk^contribs 10:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Although I would like to have seen the picture clipped a little more (for me, there's a litle too much dead space on the right) - Adrian Pingstone 15:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree, it is a completely by the book composition (rule of thirds). The attention grabbing face of the bird is dead on on an intersection point. And it looks balanced. --Dschwen 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My opinion is that on a "record" shot of an animal (which how I see this pic) it should fill the frame. Of course if this pic is regarded as something more artistic than a record shot, then you are correct - Adrian Pingstone 11:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I agree with Adrian Pingstone, It could use a crop. Witty lama 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I have seen better. --Ineffable3000 20:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, where? Because from what I've seen on commons, and the previous image that headed the House Sparrow article (Image:SparrowsMaleFemale.jpg) the alternatives are pretty poor. --Fir0002 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose dito, the background is disturbing. All the time I'm asking myself what it is ;). I have no fantasy :/. Darkone 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support All right, the House Sparrow is a rather ordinary looking bird. But this is a very high quality photo of said un-interesting bird. Hence it is encyclopedic for the article. I have also seen better pictures (of other subjects). I have no fantasy. --Bridgecross 22:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A fine looking bird, but the background is quite distracting. I can't help wondering what that is back there - a television? Whatever it is, it draws attention away from the subject and seems incongruous. Also, the banding in the out of focus area is distracting. I agree this image is better than what can be found of this subject on Wikipedia and Commons, but it still doesn't seem like FP material to me. -- Moondigger 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose. It's a technically great shot, but the composition, namely the background, ruins it for me. It's tricky to get a neutral background in an urban setting, but it could be better. --Tewy 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - the background is unnatural, but the sparrow is largely an urban bird. Just as it would be strange to see a pidgeon or cockroach in front of a field of flowers, so too would it be strange to see a sparrow there. Background, with its industrial look, adds to the encyclopedic value, imho. Debivort 08:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to an urban setting. Rather, I find the background distracting because I can't figure out what that is back there. It looks vaguely like a television, and that's incongruous because televisions wouldn't normally be found outdoors next to a ledge. I realize it's most likely not a television, but nonetheless it is distracting. -- Moondigger 13:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment FWIW, that's actually the headlights of a car --Fir0002 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Aah. I can definitely see them as headlights. I had originally seen it as a TV on something like a patio table, maybe with a brick wall surrounding the table. Maybe we should nominate the background for an article on Rorschach inkblot tests. I would definitely support the second sparrow image that has been mentioned below. Debivort 10:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Personally I couldn't care less about the background, when the bird is so sharp it almost looks 3D, how can your eye fail to be drawn to it. Terri G 18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support well, if it is a house sparrow a non natural looking background seems appropriate to me. After all it is blurred enough to make the sharp and detailed bird stand out. The only minor flaw I see is that the shape of the beak is a little obscured in this full frontal view. --Dschwen 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support - A great photo, but I'd prefer a closer crop to eliminate some of that distracting background area and also to focus your eyes on the bird better when at thumbnail size. - CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sparrow is quite sharp and detailed but I actually prefer the female sparrow taken by Fir0002 from the article. The composition is better and it stands out more against the background than this one, which is one of the main reasons for my opposition to this image, so in that sense I agree with Tewy and Moondigger. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the other image is superior, both for the less-distracting background and for the fact that the profile gives us a better idea of the details of the bird's head and beak. I suggest it be nominated separately. -- Moondigger 17:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Good resolution and excellent quality, however, just like what CountdownCrispy said, I prefer a closer crop. Acs4b 07:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support background is a tad dodgy. But the picture still looks very good and is perfect for articles. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I remember seeing this picture on Fir's user page not too long ago; I was impressed with the quality. As to whether this image is better, possibly if we had a vote. It would be close, but I like this one better. Good work Fir0002. | AndonicO 10:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Very appealing composition, very good resolution, very illustrative of a Sparrow! I feel that everyone who is in opposition to this photo commented solely based on personal aesthetic values. Jellocube27 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course we are, which is exactly how you too are judging it! - Adrian Pingstone 08:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support but crop. --Masamage 20:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, but only because you have made a better alternative. The other female photo is heaps better, and it still shows the urban environment. Good work with these, they are great. --liquidGhoul 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Towsonu2003 22:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Sparrow on ledge.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)