Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Whistling duck flight02 - natures pics.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Whistling Duck Flight

Black-Bellied Whistling Duck
Black-Bellied Whistling Duck
Edit1: Some space added at the bottom
Edit1: Some space added at the bottom

You've gotta admire a shot like this - from the excellent sharpness and focus to the superb bokeh; a great shot of a Black-Bellied Whistling Duck in flight.

  • Nominate and Support Edit 1 --Fir0002 00:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice quality picture!! --¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice. Don't suppose they have it available in higher resolution? --Dgies 06:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Minor preference for Edit 1. —Dgiest c 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done. Ilikefood 17:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support either, with preference for the original per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. Another great find. Pstuart84 Talk 19:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Difficult shot. --Tewy 23:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Support edit 1. I don't think that adding sky is an "illegal" edit in this case. It helps the composition. --Tewy 05:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. sign here • HAPPY HOLIDAYS! — s d 3 1 4 1 5 π 03:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as above. enochlau (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; every user above has said it! -- Altiris Exeunt 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Either the masses had spoken. --antilived T | C | G 09:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit1. Olegivvit 11:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support either one. I have no problems with the addition of 'blank' space that does not mess with the reality of the subject. -- Noraad 16:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Support edit 1 -- Noraad 14:29, 02 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support a quality picture... well worth it! --SunStar Nettalk 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. frothT C 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Support edit 1 frothT C 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 What can I say? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Love it, very nice. — Arjun 15:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The quality is great, and I love the second one!! Daniel10 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Edit1, though I'd also accept the original. A superb photo! Ackatsis 02:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Either Version, leaning towards Edit 1 I support both verions of this picture (it's quite beautiful!) but I am leaning more towards edit 1. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with a preference for the second one. Bobanny 22:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. Per above.--HereToHelp 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original nice one, even without the fake extension. But why is the duck surrounded by that light aura? --Dschwen 11:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Probably something in the background that's horribly out of focus --frothT C 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great quality. --William Pembroke(talk) 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit one. Both are good, clear pictures, but edit one's extra space makes it a little bit better. --RandomOrca2 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Whistling duck flight02 - natures pics-edit1.jpg Raven4x4x 05:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)