Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dowitcher

Long-Billed Dowitcher

Sharp, natural environment and I love the soft lighting.

Nominate and Support --Fir0002 06:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. It's a very good picture, but the shallow depth of field, the other Dowitcher in the background, and the very white water are slightly take off from it. NauticaShades^(talk) 06:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose, because of the messy background, it lessens encyclopedicity (esp. in thumb size). I know it's the natural habitat, but the dark bg behid the dark beak and the light water behind the light belly is just the wrong way around... --Janke | Talk 07:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose too. I agree with Janke, despite it being the natural habitat, the composition is a bit messy. At full size, it looks a bit better but it just doesn't stand out (both the bird and the image). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, the background is unfortunate - Adrian Pingstone 12:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose echoing everyone else, it's a wonderful photo of the bird but with far too distracting a background. I'm not sure whether someone competent with Photoshop could clean it up at all but for now I definitely oppose. - CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 18:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The subject itself is very clear, but as others have mentioned, the background hurts the image; I'm just not sure how much it hurts, so I don't know where to stand on this one. --Tewy 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the background looks fine, and the focus on the subject is solid. The composition is bound to be a bit messy with that kind of scenery, but it's a very good photo. --S0uj1r0 10:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think the background is too distracting; the bird looks great though. I guess if anyone has any real problems with this background, he should imagine it's camouflage. ;-) AndonicO 16:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey Fir002, what article is this picture in? I couldn't find a Long-billed Dowicher article. | AndonicO 17:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long-billed Dowitcher ;-) --Fir0002 21:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry; guess I missed the t. | AndonicO 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]