Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Striated heron

Striated heron

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2020 at 21:49:37 (UTC)

Original – A wild striated heron looking for fish in a pond in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (per file description).

Reason: High quality image.
Articles in which this image appears: Striated heron
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: GerifalteDelSabana

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks for the nomination Bammesk. - GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geoffroi 02:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ This image has only been in the article for 2 days and the removed image by JJ is probably better and more encyclopaedic (bird not standing in water). Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, the removed image cannot pass FP on Commons, it has 1500px, and the edited version which was in the article has a halo on the left side of the bird's body. The nom image is a FP on Commons. Look at both images at full size (not full screen), the nom image has a lot more detail. About standing in water: our best images are birds standing in water, examples [1], [2], [3], more examples here, or standing somewhere we can't see the feet [4], [5]. About being in the article for 2 days: FP criteria says 7 days and the nomination runs 10 days, would you support if it's stable for the duration of the nom? Bammesk (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't support it, but I'll remove my oppose vote. Although you're right about the other not being FP material, it is still better to illustrate I article I think and I'm not a fan of the nominated image, or the alt 1. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just uploaded one of my own images since it includes the feet (Alt1). It's not as high resolution as the other image, but good enough for FP. I don't have a strong opinion on which one should be used in the article personally. Kaldari (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It turns out that Wikipedia considers the Lava Heron a separate species than the Striated heron (although very few other sources do). Kaldari (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that edit on the linked file. It was pretty terrible. Also can probably provide higher resolution some time in the next few days. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because it has been removed from the article. If it gets readded, then support. MER-C 17:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to stability issues. This oppose holds even if it does get readded; there are enough question marks that I can't support. If it's re-added and is stable for a few months, maybe then we can revisit. (Also, I find some of the comments on this page a bit weird. Who cares what is and isn't eligible for Commons FPC?) Josh Milburn (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @J Milburn: I will assume that you legitimately do not understand the purpose of COM:FPC; Commons FPC is an excellent benchmark of technical quality. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't patronise me. Commons is a different project with different expectations and norms. If there are good reasons to think something is a good or bad picture, offer those reasons. "Some other people somewhere else thought it was good" is not a particularly good reason. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ah yes, the awkward relationship between FPC and normal article editing. Since this is now not about this image but a comparison between two that's splintered across two pages (the article and here), I'll just say that I tend to agree that there are good arguments for both images. the amount and quality of light is better in the older image, and the resolution clearly better in this one. the exposure could be adjusted, but would probably need to happen in a separate file since this is already promoted on Commons. IMO it could be adjusted to be sufficiently better than JJ's image, but that one has a good lighting advantage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]