Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Falco sp.jpg

File:Falco sp.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 21:58:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Falco sp.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Falco sp.jpg

•  Info created by Maria Eizagirre - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Theklan (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- A imagem caracteriza bem o rosto do animal, inclusive consegui ver o que há dentro do orificio da ave. De qualidade boa para educação também. (The picture is good but the face of well-characterized animal inclusive could even see the details inside the hole on the face of the bird). Micael 106 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good shot, but the picture is very noisy (perhaps from severe over-sharpening?). Also, there's a lot of CA around the edge of the bird. --LeavXC (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I've the original one here, so I could not sharp so much (in fact, it was only a little bit in order to mark the feathers). -Theklan (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've uploaded a non sharpened version of the image. -Theklan (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support The image is over-processed and therefore it will probably find no favor in the eyes of the purists. But both the graphic qualities (it's almost an artwork) and the encyclopedic value make it for me FP-worthy. -- MJJR (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose As a purist. W.S. 15:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Would mind saying exactly what is impure about this image so we can learn from it? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Sure: very noisy due to over-processing. W.S. 08:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Thank you. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Uploaded a new version of the image, without sharpening. -Theklan (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The result of image over processing is not pleasing when viewing at high resolution. Poor image documentation. It needs identification to species level and location details. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment. I note that the species and locality details have been added. This is a close-up image and the documentation does not explain how the photographer managed to get so close to this bird. Is the bird in captivity? The new image description asks us to notice the details in the nose. Incidentally, what structures are seen just beyond the nares in the nose? It this a normal nose or is it pathological? Snowmanradio (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment - Uploaded a non sharpened version and classified it as Falco cherrug as asked above. -Theklan (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support attractive detail and look --W.Rebel (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose the new version is much better. But the background is still a bit pixelated/grainy and there are chromatic aberrations --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Documentation is suspect. If this is Falco cherrug, it's well out of range, and improbable for a wild bird. If it's a captive bird, we should be told. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The bird is used for disuading other birds to eat in the dump, yes. -Theklan (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Orereta (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support- Joxemai (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--An13sa (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Carschten.--Snaevar (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Xabier Armendaritz (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)