Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Larus delawarensis flight 2.jpg

File:Larus delawarensis flight 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2009 at 08:36:17

Info Larus delawarensis in flight : created, uploaded, and nominated by ianaré (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ianaré (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! —kallerna™ 12:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice shot! I like the fact that the natural environment is shown as well (50mm is a rather unusual focal length for bird flight shots). Unfortunately the seagull's posture (especially the feet) is not the normal "flight position" (compare e.g. Image:Larus_canus_in_flight.jpg), which decreases the usefulness of the image somewhat. Therefore my neutral vote. --Siebengang (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you're right, it was not in fast horizontal flight (like this one here File:Larus_delawarensis_flight_3.jpg), rather it was hovering in moderate headwind. I changed the description page to reflect this. --ianaré (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough. I'm guessing the scene is fairly repeatable. That's what gulls do. --Dori - Talk 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, not sharp enough. (Yay! First edit of the year! Only edit for the day. Bit bored, so a took a visit :) ) --Mr. Mario (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good picture, but noisy background. - Man On Mission (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess this photo was the best the photographer could manage to get. →Diti the penguin — 18:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great to me. --Lošmi (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Posterization in background and not sharp enough. -- Laitche (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A VI rather than a FP nomination. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks very well.--Jagro (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --norro 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Overall composition. Crapload (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (Too late --D-Kuru (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. D-Kuru (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]