Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Piquero patiazul (Sula nebouxii), Las Bachas, isla Baltra, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-23, DD 18.JPG

File:Piquero patiazul (Sula nebouxii), Las Bachas, isla Baltra, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-23, DD 18.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2016 at 09:40:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Piquero patiazul (Sula nebouxii), Las Bachas, isla Baltra, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-23, DD 18.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Piquero patiazul (Sula nebouxii), Las Bachas, isla Baltra, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-23, DD 18.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info Blue-footed booby (Sula nebouxii) in Las Bachas, Baltra Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. The blue-footed booby is a long-winged seabird with a wingspan of up to 1.5 m (4.9 ft). The species is 90 cm (35 in) high and is easily recognizable by its distinctive bright blue feet, which is a sexually selected trait, as the males display their feet in an elaborate mating ritual by lifting their feet up and down while strutting before the female. Although the blue-footed boobies are usually associated to the Galápagos Islands (where half of all breedinmg pairs nest), they can be found from the Gulf of California down along the western coasts of Central and South America down to Peru. All by me, Poco² 09:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 09:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - I'm not going to be able to support this because the background tends to make me feel dizzy. I'm inclined to oppose it because I think we can find better pictures of this bird, but I don't feel like doing more than leaving this comment, at the moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  Ikan Kekek, please, have a new look, I realized that just after I nominated it Poco² 10:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Question What did you do? Since I'm not comparing the two versions in real time, I can't be positive that you did anything (rather than that I'm reacting differently after a night's sleep), but my subjective reaction is that it seems much better. I still wish the entire rock was clear at full size, but it is clear at full-page size, and though I'd still prefer for the background to be clear, it's no longer making me feel dizzy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ikan Kekek: if you refresh your cache you will realize the differences. As stated in the change history I did some cloning in the background (tip of a white boat, a blue boat and something else on the right. When I looked at the picture that didn't disturb me, but later on, when I looked carefully it did, and, as you mentioned, made me also kind of dizzy. Poco² 18:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Fine for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I think this photo deserve FP but I suggest the cropped version (This cropped version still have 19MP). That would be better, imho. --Laitche (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I agree. I think cropping it that way, or in a way similar to that, would improve the picture, because a bunch of blurry background just detracts from the quality of the photo. Shall that be offered as an alternative? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Ok, you convinced me. I have cropped it that way, but kept a bit more on the right to hold the rule of two thirds. Feel free to include as an alternative the version with a tighter crop. Thanks guys. Poco² 19:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I still wish the rocks were clear (or at least less blurry) at full size, but I'm willing to  Support this version, which looks good at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Even without the processing issues (take a look at the rock tip to the right of the bird), I find the horizon line behind the bird distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Daniel here, the horizon line behind the bird is too distracting despite impressive resolution and details.--ArildV (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  Daniel, the issue you pointed out is fixed.

Thank, and it's a better photo for it. But I still don't like the way the horizon line breaks up the background. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding the background I don't see what can I do. To be honest, I am a bit confused, what kind of background do you expect for a seabird? Poco² 23:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  it is an unusual sharp contrast between the sky and the sea, and the line is just behind the bird's body.--ArildV (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks for the crop. --Laitche (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
•  weak oppose I'm not sure about that horizon line yet, I think I might actually like it. But the texture of the rock looks pretty strange and blown highlights are leading to loss of detail on (the illuminated sections of) the white feathers. --El Grafo (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 23:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Head not right for FP. Charles (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Poco² 21:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)