Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/White-throated kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis fusca)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2020 at 15:30:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

OK, look. I have to break the fish's spine so I can swallow it.
Now I release it to position it better in my beak.
Great. Didn't drop it. Would have been SO embarrassing with you watching.
This is the clever bit. Watch. I release it again so I can swivel it round 90 degrees.
Perfect, are you impressed? Swallowing head first is THE only way.
Mmmm. That was tasty. How did I do?

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Alcedinidae (Kingfishers)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is good and I would support the 3rd and 6th shot as a series, but this whole series goes to far IMHO and it doesn't fulfill the second type of series (A sequence of images showing the passage of time) as the differences between them are minor Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just having 3rd and 6th would have no didactic use. The "minor" differences are crucial to demonstrate the precise eating process. I agree that not everyone will be interested, but where else have you seen this documented? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral without prejudice to individual nominations. I just don't really see the value of having these as a set as they're high in number and visually similar. Points for narrative :) but this many frames to illustrate an action like this gets to the point that it would be better served with a video. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would be a five-second video and you not be able to see exactly what's going on without freeze frame - which would not show this level of detail. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point, but you would get the actual movement. I think one of the things I struggle with with sequence-based set nominations is that they're so rarely actually displayed as a set. It's far more likely people will find these individually or out of sequence, and I'm just not sure we need 6. I'm reminded of what you did with File:Rosy-faced lovebirds (Agapornis roseicollis roseicollis) composite.jpg. It would be hard to do that with 7, but it's a way to tie them together without promoting [in that case three] visually similar images. Regardless, I'll move to neutral and give it some more thought. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but if we have sets, then we must expect a number of shots. I have tried a composite, but that doesn't display well. Perhaps an anology is some of the very long panoramas we get here, that are difficult to appreciate As you can see from the voting, it's pretty impossible to get all of six shots at individual FP level and obviously voters are not happy making allowance for that, which is fair enough. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering that these are action shots, I think they are all at FP level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems like a valid set to me. I get Rhododendrites' point, but this is better quality than any video would be likely to be. And it's quite interesting to see the whole process. Cmao20 (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Number #5 is not an FP. Blown highlights and blurry face -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Basile Morin.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 --Ermell (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile and Nr 1 is imho also not sharp enough for FP. --Ivar (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao, great educational value and really fun. --Aristeas (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]