Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/House Sparrow2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Female House Sparrow

Several people in my previous nomination mentioned that this image was superior, so I thought I'd put it up for discussion. The image is sharp, has nice colors, and the bird is in an interesting pose.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Faced with a dilemma here. In isolation I would support this image, but it isn't isolated and since a very similar subject has already been made FP, I'm not sure that I think there should be two FP of basically the same thing. Sure, the composition and pose is a little different but thats about it. Ideally, I don't think the first candidate should have been made FP, which would make this one easier to support, but what is done is done. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Very true, and I did have some reservation on this nomination. However in it's defence, I notice that there is soon going to be two FP's which have even greater similarity! :-)--Fir0002 12:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I intend to nominate the old FP for delisting as it is severely undersized. Will you do that to your newly crowned birdy FP? ;-). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we also have two koala FPs: and , so the precedent is already there. howcheng {chat} 15:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

True. I actually thought that older koala picture was already de-listed. Although there is nothing technically wrong with it, I just don't like the shot and angle itself that much, but I suspect it would scrape in if it were nominated for de-listing now. Still, no harm in finding out. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support and I would also support this as a replacement if Fir wants to nominate the other for delisting (which is up to him, I don't really mind). --liquidGhoul 14:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I like the other one better, and would oppose here if its necessary to keep the other one "crowned". By the way, aren't you on a Wikibreak? ;-) | AndonicO Talk 15:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Really? This one has a better pose of the subject, so you can see more of it, and it doesn't have the horrible car in the background. --liquidGhoul 22:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. That's somewhat salami tactics (slice by slice). I'd have preferred to be presented with both pictures at the same time. This one is nice, but the subject doesn't warrant two FP's. --Dschwen 16:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • • I generally try not to nominate more than one version of a pic at once (true the compound eye is an execption) since it makes closing difficult. A few peolpe mentioned in the old nom that this pic should be nominated seperately, so here it is. Fair enough you could think that it doesn't warrant 2 FP's but remember they are two very different images (like the koala shots) and remember there is no limit to the number of FP's - they images just have to conform to the standard. A few more examples Image:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg and Image:USAF F-15C fires AIM-7 Sparrow 2.jpg are basically the same; Image:Cyclone Gafilo.jpeg and Image:Cyclone Catarina from the ISS on March 26 2004.JPG; Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg and Image:Yarra Panorama.jpg - so you see there's quite a precedent. --Fir0002 10:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• What if this were made a replacement nomination? --liquidGhoul 22:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I actually feel that this image () is probably the best of the images from the article. It is slightly on the low side of resolution but the composition is far better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't really see a difference in quality, except for size. It also doesn't look like the same species, but I guess that is what happens when one introduces a small population onto a continent, and they breed into the millions, if not billions. --liquidGhoul 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, to my amateur eyes, the one I mentioned looks more representative of a sparrow than Fir0002's one, which looks far skinnier than normal, but I really wouldn't know. Maybe it wasn't as cold that day and the sparrow didn't ruffle up its feathers, or something? :-) In any case, it wasn't the quality in question, it was just the composition, which I think looked a bit nicer. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe you've gotten used to the English sparrows. Unfortunately, I have many of these birds in my backyard, and they all look like Fir's. However, you are right, in that your photo is more representative of the species, as the Australian bird is an introduced population with narrow genetic diversity. I would say that it is probably a healthy and well fed bird though, as it looks healthy, and lives outside a bakery. --liquidGhoul 07:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well fed, probably, but I had a look at some old sparrow pics from Melbourne that I had lying around (never fear, they are definitely not FP worthy!) and they looked fluffier and fatter than this nomination as well. In fact to be honest, I've never realy seen a sparrow that thin before. Could it be a juvanile rather than adult? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• As per liquidGhoul, it rings pretty true with me too as a typical 'Australian' sparrow. The one you've shown above looks quite different to what I'm used to. Personally, I think the current nom in its original crop is the best image in the article. --jjron 16:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. And I support a delisting of the current FP (if I ever come across it). --Tewy 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support crop. Better, more uniform background and more focus on the bird. --Tewy 18:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• OpposeSupport clipped version. A lovely pic in great focus, but it needs clipping. For me the bird is too small in the frame - Adrian Pingstone 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I like it but and I will change my vote if more/better clipping is done Better clipping is done therefore it has my support. SOADLuver 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've uploaded a 1:1 crop from the original cameras. Because it is a 1:1 crop the quality is slightly degraded (not even a DSLR can give good 1:1 crops) but perhaps it will suit some better. --Fir0002 10:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like the way the bird looks but do not like the shingles on which it stands; surface just too ugly for me, sorry.Harborsparrow 17:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support crop. No idea what a 1:1 crop is (though I'm sure I've looked it up), but the result is nicer, more directed. I have slight reservations about having two very similar FP's, so, "don't do it again" I guess. :) Stevage 06:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I interpreted it as taking the original photo at the original resolution out-of-camera and cropping it to a wiki-friendly resolution, as opposed to taking the original photo and downsampling it to a wiki-friendly resolution. The end result is the roughly the same pixel resolution, but the 1:1 crop means you are effectively 'zoomed in' on the image more, so the quality is reduced a little due to a lack of downsampling. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a normal crop to me. Stevage 05:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support cropped version -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I've had a bit of a think about it but I don't think it quite qualifies as a FP in my opinion. There is a better image on the article that I would support in preference to this one. It is still quite a nice photo though, but sparrows are pretty easy to capture and the standards are a bit higher. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support cropped version. I liked this on Fir's FPC page, and I like the crop even more. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support either, preference for original. As I said above, this is the best picture in the article, and better than the existing sparrow FP. --jjron 09:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Although it has no real quality issues, a common subject deserves an amzing shot, which this is not. NauticaShades 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:House sparrow04.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)