Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Actitis hypoleucos - Laem Pak Bia.jpg

File:Actitis hypoleucos - Laem Pak Bia.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2016 at 03:35:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Actitis hypoleucos - Laem Pak Bia.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Actitis hypoleucos - Laem Pak Bia.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
•  Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Skyllfully —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 03:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support as nominator. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 03:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

*Moderate  Support. Others may find the file too small. The sharpness is quite good though not to the standard of recent submissions in which you could easily count every visible feather. But it's clear enough for me; only the far foot is obviously fuzzy, and I like the simple, essentially non-bokeh background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Question Excellent shoot, however, EOS-1D Mark IV has 16.1 effective megapixels, Why this shoot has only 2 MP?. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Small size, and the stump isn't the most attractive perch. INeverCry 00:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Technically well done; high educational value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Small resolution maybe, but large enough. And I actually rather like the stump. Deserves a feature. -- Thennicke (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I don't usually support lowish resolutions images, but I think I'll make an exception here. -- Ram-Man 16:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Although the photographer didn't submit the photo for nomination, nevertheless, I can't support a photographer that intentionally downsizes. -- Ram-Man 03:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Supporting this is support a downsize malpractice to cover mistakes and this is a disadvantage for those users with lower MP cameras that make a big effort to publish their images in full resolution. --The Photographer (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose If someone offers high-res versions of his photos only for money, it is his right to do so. But in my opinion, respective low-res versions shouldn't then be selected as the finest of Commons. Either — or... --A.Savin 15:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support This is over 4 MP, more than sufficient for the genre. And are we sure this has been downsampled? Heavy cropping is often required for wildlife photos. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. Have a browse here. English Wikipedia does not have the same standards that A.Savin has finely articulated. -- Ram-Man 02:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
    •  Oppose - You've proven your point, given the sizes of all those images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Subdued colors work very well here. Yes, this is small but it's not ineligibly so. And the reasons for the downsizing are irrelevant to me ... if the picture works and the downsizing does not create technical flaws of its own, I don't have a problem. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I'm less concerned about absolute MP than about the detail and quality of the image. This is noiseless, sharp, well-lit, and posed to give highest educational value (as a species-identification picture). Given the lens is 700mm (500mm + 1.4x teleconverter) and ISO 400, so won't be studio-sharp at 100%, whereas this is. If it was less than perfect at 4MP, I'd oppose, but I don't think we're missing anything. -- Colin (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per Colin. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)