Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poecile montanus kleinschmidti.jpg

File:Poecile montanus kleinschmidti.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 23:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Baresi franco - uploaded by Baresi franco - nominated by Baresi franco -- Baresi franco (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Baresi franco (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request No location given - please add! - MPF (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Info South Lancashire, UK
  - Comment Thanks! Can you add it to the image file, please? - MPF (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Info Yep, done!
Comment At first sight, looks to me more like Poecile palustris than Poecile montanus (am checking further, though) - MPF (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Yep, they are tricky to tell apart visually, but this is definitely montanus. They are quite common where I live (and palustris very rare), and have a distinctive call with which I am familiar.
  - Comment Thanks! Yep, I know South Lancs is a good Willow Tit area ;-) MPF (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It sure is - we're very lucky to have them!
Comment Tail slightly cropped, which is unfortunate (as tail tip shape is a useful identification character). Is there an original with more field of view at the left? - MPF (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Unfortunately, that is the extent of the original to the left.
Strong oppose Tail is cut off. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The image can be extended using cgi, but I don't see the need. Brilliant as is. Penyulap ☏ 16:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info I've gone back and checked the original, and there was a little bit extra on the left, so hopefully that's the tip of the tail now touching the edge of the shot. I've also cropped slightly tighter, and it's now at original resolution. -this is probably a comment by by Baresi franco

this featured pic was cgi extended, doing yours would be trivial but honestly I can't see the need at all. The balance of the nodes on the branch, the lovely centering, the model does such good posing for bird-seed :) no but seriously this goes way beyond Featured Pic requirements as is. Is it in articles yet ? should be. Penyulap ☏ 22:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info Thanks, I've put it in the Willow Tit article. -- Baresi franco (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in how many languages ? ......aaaAAhhh ! :) Penyulap ☏ 04:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Arctic K. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is there anyone that would disagree the image would be better with a composition that fully includes the tail? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not me - I would have loved to have got a shot that included more space to the left. Thought it was worth a punt as it's a fairly sharp, detailed shot of what is quite a rare bird in the UK these days. Appreciate the constructive comments.--Baresi franco (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info I've extended the photo to the left - any good?--Baresi franco (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support The image is very sharp, the background is lovely, and the eye contact really pops! Very nice image! -- Alexander Vasenin (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]