Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sandhill Crane

Sandhill Crane[edit]

Self-nomination. Neutrality^talk 20:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's an interested photo, but it's off-center in an odd way, half of the bird's face (the main content) is shadowed almost completely out, and the photo is pretty small. If you have a larger version and touch-up these couple of things, I'd be happy to support it. Staxringold 21:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regardless of whether a larger version is uploaded. The background ruins it: it's got a strip of concrete and what looks like a manhole on the right. Enochlau 03:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons above, plus I don't think this is a reasonable angle for this kind of bird, it's like taking a picture of a sheet of paper edge on ;-). --Dschwen 07:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the pic is striking enough but the bird occupies far too little of the frame. I think it should have been in a portrait format - Adrian Pingstone 10:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think it is particularly striking, nor is it big or detailed enough, and I agree with previous comments that it should have been in portrait format and not head-on. Or, ideally, a photo of the whole bird. It just doesn't contribute enough to the article on sandhill cranes. Diliff 01:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Poor composition. I would prefer an image showing the whole bird. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the picture, the angle and the background! 24.34.188.211 02:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, anonymous editors cannot vote. Please register. Enochlau 00:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the picture, the angle and the background! Rmpfu89 13:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
( − ) Oppose}} Too small, drab colors, none to spectacular background. --Fir0002 10:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]