Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marine eagle and chick.jpg

File:Marine eagle and chick.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2017 at 03:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Marine eagle and chick.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marine eagle and chick.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - My first impression on seeing the thumbnail is that this was a great photo, and I'm going with that. The motion blur, in my opinion, is fine. There's a bit of bookkeeping to take care of, though. The eagles should be identified by their Latin species, which I would think there would be a Commons category for, too, that this should be in. Also, the Featured pictures category should be /Animals/Birds, I believe. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The bird is mostly out of focus and noisy. The composition is unfortunate as we only see the back of the bird and it is in shade. Crop is tight. Charles (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- As per Charles Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Per Charles --Ermell (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Charles said what I was thinking, and if he thinks they make this photo unfeaturable I second his judgement. Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment This is not only about the eagle itself but of a moment with the eagle returning to the nest to the chick... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sure, it's a great VI moment, just not a great photo. Charles (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose - even if you argue that it's not about the bird but instead about the interaction between mother(?) and chick, I don't think it excels in that realm, either. The chick is diminutive and partially obscured, and, regardless of intent, the tight crop does emphasize the adult as the main subject, leaving only a small sliver of nest protruding into the frame. It's a fine picture, one that I'd be proud to have taken myself, but not up to FP standards IMO. Sorry, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Ggia (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)