Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Florida Burrowing Owl

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 13:10:30 (UTC)

Reason: Lovely shot used in the taxobox. High EV, meets the technical criteria.
Articles in which this image appears: Burrowing Owl
FP category for this image: Birds
Creator: Dori

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good photo, also featured on Commons --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background makes for a nice contrast of the owl. Gut Monk (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For good resolution. I love how stern the owl looks. There's a lot of needless background in this, but I don't mind it because my standard-size monitor gets a good piece of owl from any point I look at. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really very sharp. Definitely reproducible, so I think it's fair to insist upon better quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Will you scratch out your oppose for the following reason? It's sharp enough on my display. Gut Monk (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Makeemlighter, also the Commons vote was pretty close with several opposes on sharpness as well. I think we can do better. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the above: I don't understand, the owl looks fairly sharp on my computer. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a fairly high standard for bird shots, there is no detail on the feathers, it's not sharp focus. Likewise this is a common bird, so it's highly reproducible. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it's adequately sharp. Compare with, say this fella. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to sharpness Gazhiley (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have to agree, the picture isn't as sharp as other featured pictures of birds that I've seen. -- Jack?! 14:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The image could be a bit sharper, but overall it is still a nice image. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 00:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]