- Reason
- High quality and enc image of a male Australian Wood Duck
- Articles this image appears in
- Australian Wood Duck
- Creator
- Fir0002
- Support as nominator -- Fir0002 07:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral It's a beautiful picture (and I'd add, as often), but I think it should be sharper at that size. I miss some details and texture on the legs, but maybe I'm asking too much which is why I don't oppose. Blieusong ( talk) 11:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Crisp detail, great colour and background difussion Capital photographer ( talk) 12:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- It certainly is a good picture, but featuring 1.6MP photos which are not completely sharp is pretty 2005. Ack Blieusong. -- Dschwen 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm also missing the detail and ruing the blur. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Super composition means it gets my vote -- Childzy ¤ Talk 22:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition. -- Dsmurat ( talk) 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support The important part is sharp. It's arty. I love the composition, the colour, the background diffusion to copy a couple of other support votes above. I love the result of the composition and will strongly oppose any sharpening. Blow it up big and enter it in a an art photo contest, also. -- Blechnic ( talk) 06:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the sharpness of this picture, not to mention the cuteness of the subject. I think it deserves to be an FP. Elephantissimo ( talk) 22:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF makes me feel like I'm supposed to be looking at the grass or just the front part of the body. Other images in the article appear equally good. Greener Cactus ( talk) 20:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Australian wood duck - male.jpg MER-C 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and enc image of a male Australian Wood Duck
- Articles this image appears in
- Australian Wood Duck
- Creator
- Fir0002
- Support as nominator -- Fir0002 07:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral It's a beautiful picture (and I'd add, as often), but I think it should be sharper at that size. I miss some details and texture on the legs, but maybe I'm asking too much which is why I don't oppose. Blieusong ( talk) 11:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Crisp detail, great colour and background difussion Capital photographer ( talk) 12:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- It certainly is a good picture, but featuring 1.6MP photos which are not completely sharp is pretty 2005. Ack Blieusong. -- Dschwen 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm also missing the detail and ruing the blur. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Super composition means it gets my vote -- Childzy ¤ Talk 22:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition. -- Dsmurat ( talk) 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support The important part is sharp. It's arty. I love the composition, the colour, the background diffusion to copy a couple of other support votes above. I love the result of the composition and will strongly oppose any sharpening. Blow it up big and enter it in a an art photo contest, also. -- Blechnic ( talk) 06:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the sharpness of this picture, not to mention the cuteness of the subject. I think it deserves to be an FP. Elephantissimo ( talk) 22:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF makes me feel like I'm supposed to be looking at the grass or just the front part of the body. Other images in the article appear equally good. Greener Cactus ( talk) 20:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Australian wood duck - male.jpg MER-C 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)