Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysolophus amherstiae (Leadbeater, 1829).jpg

File:Chrysolophus amherstiae (Leadbeater, 1829).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2016 at 23:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysolophus amherstiae (Leadbeater, 1829).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysolophus amherstiae (Leadbeater, 1829).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Impressive closeup of an interesting bird, and the bokeh is decent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is not sharp enough, nor are the colours bright, to be a 'head' FP and there are many better images in the Commons category gallery showing the full bird with all its amazing colours. Could be accepted as QI if tone/colours improved. Charles (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Charles, while I agree the rest of the bird is very colourful and it is a shame this photo doesn't include them, where are the "better images"? I look at several and they are all small or poor quality. This seems quite sharp enough, but I'm not sure to support due to the loss of the colourful plumage. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Colin, they are all in Category:Chrysolophus amherstiae (captive). None are that special but if there was a run off for FP I have to support one of them. This image just doesn't have the composition or technical quality to be FP and it doesn't illustrate the bird at all well. FP should be a high barrier to clear. Charles (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Charles: None of those photos is a QI or VI. Could you please point to one or two you like better than this one, so we can consider them by comparison? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Support After reading above.--Jebulon (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose per Charles. I also find this crop a little too tight, head shot notwithstanding. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose In the end, I've decided that choosing to frame just the head of this very colourful bird is an odd choice. Many of the best bits are missing. -- Colin (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charles. --Rftblr (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Weird lighting and not sharp enough. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is really eyecatching, but the crop is far too tight to me, it cannot breath. It is really a shame, I'd like to support it with a better framing --Poco² 23:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)