Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yellow-legged gull, CAC (6).jpg

File:Yellow-legged gull, CAC (6).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 21:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Yellow-legged gull, CAC (6).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yellow-legged gull, CAC (6).jpg

•  Info Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in the water outside L'Hemisfèric, Valencia. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- KTC (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support The quality is just great. Even the smallest water drops are visible around this bird legs. Although, might require another crop for a more centered look. The balance between the top of the image and the bottom is a little bit missing here for me, however that water looks lovely though, so I am not really sure about that. -- Pofka (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Wow, the sharpness on the eyes is wonderful. Great job. I do think that the top bit is a little distracting, and the bottom could be cropped more tightly. In order to not make the top crop too tight, a possibility would be cloning out the stuff there rather than cropping it away. — Julian H.^✈ 13:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I would crop it (get rid of upper coastline). --Mile (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'd personally have love to end up with more isolation of the subject from the rest, like in that picture (I'm aware it's not as sharp, but I find the result much more impressive). - Benh (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• @Pofka: @Julian Herzog: @PetarM: @Benh: I have uploaded a new version, what do you think? -- KTC (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Now it looks perfect for me. -- Pofka (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, much better. --Mile (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The crop is better. But it doesn't fix my own concern (which I don't think you can fix afterwards anyways). - Benh (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for your opinion. Technically, it is possible to blur the entire background with much photoshopping, but that will of course not be a minor adjustment. -- KTC (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Good catch. -- Colin (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support and thanks for the update. — Julian H.^✈ 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Soundwaweserb (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - Good catch. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good but far from exceptional, as most of the subject is unsharp or out of focus. In my opinion it doesn't compare favourably with the many FP examples of birds in flight (here, some of them gulls). Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Qualified support Great detail on the animal, where it matters. And it's nice to see a gull against aqua-colored water instead of dark blue. Still, I think it could be improved by coming in more on the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- Sorry Daniel but there is no detail at all on the bird, at least when set against the comparable FP: this one, this one, this one or this one, for example. If we choose other species, the differences are even for striking, as with this one. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support D kuba (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support--Touzrimounir (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds