Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Große Raubmöwe (Stercorarius skua) auf Handa Island.JPG

Image:Große Raubmöwe (Stercorarius skua) auf Handa Island.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2015 at 16:14:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info created by Elrond - uploaded by Elrond - nominated by Elrond -- Elrond (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elrond (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment - I'm inclined not to vote on this one because of my objection, usually (though not always) to bokeh of unidentifiable composition in general, but I will express my opinion about this picture (and I hope I don't seem overly harsh and would feel bad if I do). The bird is very clear except for the feathers toward the lower right corner, which are noticeably blurred even at thumbnail size, but the viewer has no idea where the bird is. It seems to be arbitrarily standing somewhere in thin air. I would like to see the bird being shown roosting on something. In addition, the bird's body is cut off on the bottom and viewer's right, without there being an obvious compositional reason for that, since there is no other object visible. The more I analyze this picture, the more tempted I am to vote in opposition to featuring it, but having said my piece, I prefer to see what others with more "mainstream" views on photography think of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment @Ikan Kekek This is no biological study this is a portrait of this bird. And because it is a portrait, the head is in the center and also because of this, not the whole body is pictured. The bird is sitting on a rock. And why is a mainstream picture a better one than on outside when it is justifiable? --Elrond (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment - You misunderstood my remark about "mainstream" views. I usually oppose bokeh with unrecognizable backgrounds, so my view on that is out of the mainstream of this site. However, and with apologies because I know you put effort into the picture, I don't find this to be a good portrait. It's one thing to have a head shot with the head in the center of the picture and quite another to have a portrait with an unrecognizable background and the bird cut off, seemingly arbitrarily, in two places and standing in apparent mid-air. It's completely OK, of course, that we disagree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 01:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. INeverCry 03:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me, the bird's face is in focus, along with most of its body—that's all it needs. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan — I see no good reason for showing only this part of the bird, I think it's cut awkwardly. Only the head would make sense, and so would the whole bird. I also dislike the relationship between the (large amount of) space on the left and the (very little) space towards the top. — Julian H.^✈ 07:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above, also part of the head is not in perfect focus --ArildV (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose basically per Julian: Crop is either too wide or not wide enough, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abyssal (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible cut. Left-side blurred background is 1/3 of the image and there is no space for the bird's tail and legs... -- Pofka (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support mostly per Daniel. --Tremonist (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly on the crop as note. I don't have a problem with the background. (Please, if you have the raw file, can you save your JPGs as sRGB colourspace rather than AdobeRGB. The former is the standard on the internet and the latter for sending to print-shops only. All mobile browser viewers (who are a majority on some Wikipedias) will see incorrect colours unless you use sRGB, and 99.0% of the rest don't have a display that can render colours outside sRGB anyway). -- Colin (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Hubertl 18:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]