Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vogelflugschau im Schloß Augustusburg. 2998WI1.jpg

File:Vogelflugschau im Schloß Augustusburg. 2998WI1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2019 at 17:52:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created and uploaded by Kora27, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is very good. I also like the light. -- Yann (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Interesting, dynamic photo. Cmao20 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great photo, but since you have put it in /Animals/Birds instead of /People at work, shouldn't the falcon be a bit better identified? --Cart (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, or maybe the category People at work, since this image competed at the challenge Working Women two month ago -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed the category. Yann (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither bird nor handler are in focus. All very soft. Charles (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sharp at 3600 px large but the crop is tight at the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's unsharp, but the noise reduction seems to have killed the details and the crop to the left is a bit too tight. . --Granada (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also a strange banding in the sky --Llez (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the weird artifacts in the sky noted by Llez above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awkward crop noted above and frankly, even without looking to confirm the technical failings, I'm just not wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Llez and Ikan Kekek: The background is obviously not the sky. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious what else it would be, but even if it's a painted background, those look like weird artifacts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: To me, the background is some ills or mountains, with some buildings in the lower right, below the bird wing. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info There is another earlier version of this file: File:Vogelflugschau. Schloß Augustusburg. 2H1A7998OB.jpg. It doesn't appear to have the small imperfections that seem to bother some voters. Why don't you put that up as an Alt? --Cart (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the other opposes above, lo siento --Booth sift 23:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. Plus poor categories (the photographer may be too unfamiliar with Commons to fix that, but the nominator actually should have done before opening the vote). Sorry. --A.Savin 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: What categories are not OK? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most categories are ok now, after I fixed them. Please also remember to use {{Personality rights}} for photos with people and to add all the info to the new Alt when you propose one. I have fixed that for you plus the language in the description (as you requested in the summary). --Cart (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the timepoint where I wrote this, there were categories: "Greifvogelschau -- Falconidae -- Unidentified women -- Women with birds". a) Greifvogelschau is just a German word and it was at that timepoint in categories "Falconry" + "Falconry in Germany" -> never heard of COM:OVERCAT? b) Falconidae is obviously too generic, the species needs proper identification. c) "Unidentified women" is only for women who needs to be identified (for example a sportswoman at a certain contest, where the photographer doesn't know her name but it's obvious that she is notable and has or at least deserves her own category) -- otherwise the category is hopelessly overflow and no one is able to pick out some photos, identify the person and move them to a more proper category. d) "Women with birds" has been the only proper category. A shame that an allegedly long-term sysop doesn't know such basic things. --A.Savin 14:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: Your personal attack is not acceptable. Yann (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any. And wrt the categories, I'm certainly right. --A.Savin 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per what I wrote below. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support As proposed by Cart above. Pinging @Cmao20, W.carter, Basile Morin, Eatcha, and Granada: @Charlesjsharp, Llez, Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case, and Boothsift: @A.Savin: people involved above. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the wow is in how she (with the help of the wall) frames the bird and the strong interaction between them. It's a large photo and I think the sharpness is acceptable. --Cart (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need for pinging me, I just commented and did not oppose. --Granada (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support still okay -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than the other one, I have switched my support vote away to this one. Cmao20 (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to oppose because the main subject isn't properly identified. What's more, I'm 95% certain it's actually misidentified (I would be shocked if that turned out to be a member of Falconidae). Regardless of the FP category, it's the most prominent part of the image. Rather than oppose (it is a good photo) I've tried to do some research to try to identify it, but have not had luck yet (I'm ok with birds of North America, but that's it). I've asked in a bird identification subreddit that tends to be pretty helpful and will report back if/when someone replies. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already received a response: Ferruginous Hawk / Buteo regalis (indeed not part of Falconidae). Didn't come up in my research because it's not a European bird. Must be breeding them or something. Considering it further, I think I still come down as weak oppose on this. It's a good photo at a glance, but it's not strong in any one particular way. I think it's hard to say the main subject is the woman, since she's way off to the side, cropped off, and looking directly at the bird, which is in the center of the frame and center of attention. But a photo of a captive animal should really be excellent technical quality to be featured. This is a nice shot, but I'd want to see more sharpness for a captive bird. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the species. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, essentially per Rhododendrites. If the woman weren't cropped on the viewer's left, the composition might be good enough to override the relative softness of the hawk, but I don't like the crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm still not wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but it still doesn't cut it for me. --Booth sift 06:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition and quality could have been better but I like how the woman and the hawk are looking at each other. It feels like their communicating. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]