Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Whistling duck flight02 - natures pics.jpg

Whistling Duck Flight

Black-Bellied Whistling Duck

Edit1: Some space added at the bottom

You've gotta admire a shot like this - from the excellent sharpness and focus to the superb bokeh; a great shot of a Black-Bellied Whistling Duck in flight.

Nominate and Support Edit 1 --Fir0002 00:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice quality picture!! --¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Don't suppose they have it available in higher resolution? --Dgies 06:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor preference for Edit 1. —Dgies^t c 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done. Ilikefood 17:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, with preference for the original per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. Another great find. Pstuart84 Talk 19:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. Difficult shot. --Tewy 23:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edit 1. I don't think that adding sky is an "illegal" edit in this case. It helps the composition. --Tewy 05:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. sign here • HAPPY HOLIDAYS! — s d 3 1 4 1 5 ^π 03:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as above. enochlau (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; every user above has said it! -- Alt iris Exeunt 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either the masses had spoken. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit1. Olegivvit 11:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either one. I have no problems with the addition of 'blank' space that does not mess with the reality of the subject. -- Noraad 16:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edit 1 -- Noraad 14:29, 02 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a quality picture... well worth it! --SunStar Net^talk 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ⁪froth^{T C} 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edit 1 ⁪froth^{T C} 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 What can I say? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it, very nice. — Arjun 15:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is great, and I love the second one!! Daniel10 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Edit1, though I'd also accept the original. A superb photo! Ackatsis 02:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either Version, leaning towards Edit 1 I support both verions of this picture (it's quite beautiful!) but I am leaning more towards edit 1. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a preference for the second one. Bobanny 22:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. Per above.--Here T oHelp 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original nice one, even without the fake extension. But why is the duck surrounded by that light aura? --Dschwen 11:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably something in the background that's horribly out of focus --⁪froth^{T C} 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality. --William Pembroke^(talk) 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit one. Both are good, clear pictures, but edit one's extra space makes it a little bit better. --RandomOrca2 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Whistling duck flight02 - natures pics-edit1.jpg Raven4x4x 05:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]