Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gull portrait ca usa

Gull portrait ca usa

Alternate version

A stunning photograph, both technically and visually, taken by Dschwen. It greatly illustrates the features of a gull's head. Do not oppose this photograph; you could potentially offend the birds.

Nominate and support. - ♠ SG →Talk 05:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've removed the caption; the red dot isn't the main purpose of the image, but rather the entire head. I've noticed that many people just nominate photos without captions at all. I try to have decent captions, but the one it had was the best I could come up with. I've also added the image to the Gull article. ♠ SG →Talk 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: great shot, though hardly unique, but certainly eye-catching. Robert 05:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. It is a very good image, but AFAIK it isn't used on any articles. If placed on an appropriate article I'll reconsider my vote. -- Moondigger 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support for high detail and iconic image. -- Weak Oppose per Howcheng and Moondigger. The caption refers specifically to the red spot, an important feature on ~~Herring Gulls~~ Western Gulls for feeding their young. --Bridgecross 16:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unfortunately the most important part of the picture, the spot, happens to be in the shadow. howch e ng {chat} 15:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is much better, in my opinion. NauticaShades^(talk) 17:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I added it. NauticaShades^(talk) 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact that this is a detailed,large,and nicely taken picture overshadows it's criticisms in my mind. SOADLuver 20:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate only. It is much more encyclopedic and generally more interesting. NauticaShades^(talk) 19:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well.. ..if I may. If I wouldn't find both of them supportworthy I wouldn't have uploaded them in the first place. Too bad that somehow the discussion evolved around the red dot so much. Certainly not protocol to cram a second pic into the nomination either. And both pics appear in articles now, so what about that oppose from Moondigger? --Dschwen 09:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's largely my fault, as I made the caption. I've since removed the caption, as it was really useless and just distracting people from the photo. However, the above people who voted against because of the red dot caption haven't changed their votes, so I don't know. Anyhow, the other picture needs to be moved into its own FP nomination. ♠ SG →Talk 18:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obviously I'm probably biased, but I prefer the existing seagull FP to either of them. --Fir0002 23:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted I renominated the second version seperately. --Fir0002 23:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]