Support. Not super-sharp, but visually striking and I'm happy to take your word about the difficulty of the shot, which mitigates the possible quality issues.
J Milburn (
talk) 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I kinda prefer the other one. Any reason you chose to nominate this one? —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 06:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Better view of the plumage on wings and tail.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 07:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Alright. Weak support on that account, although if this is a ground dwelling bird a picture of it on the ground would naturally have more EV. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 07:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
(It's on the root of a tree)
JJ Harrison (
talk) 11:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Thought so, but not readily apparent. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Can be made apparent by adding it to the image description perhaps?
Abudhar (
talk) 14:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Support Great pictures as always by this editor. Sharp, and can see the head clearly. Colours are also well balanced.
Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 09:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)reply
You're not the nominator. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 09:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Short for "I support as the nominator does", perhaps? Support as per the nominator would be the way that was normally said around here, Arctic Kangaroo!
J Milburn (
talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's was what I meant. Thanks for telling me, it's my first time voting here. Changed to support.
Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Support. Sharpness isn't great, but good enough given the conditions. Is it possible to tell if this is a male or female?
Kaldari (
talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
It's a male - the female plumage is duller, essentially.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 11:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
The article could do with a little bit of information, the like of which you have provided, and more.
Abudhar (
talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Support as per nom
Abudhar (
talk) 14:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Neutral It looks like a flash was used and this was a high end camera to capture a subject that's found only in difficult conditions for photography, but I don't think that I can call this among Wikipedia's best work due to the sharpness issues. --Pine✉ 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Support It has some details but meh; great EV. —
ΛΧΣ21 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Support. Not super-sharp, but visually striking and I'm happy to take your word about the difficulty of the shot, which mitigates the possible quality issues.
J Milburn (
talk) 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I kinda prefer the other one. Any reason you chose to nominate this one? —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 06:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Better view of the plumage on wings and tail.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 07:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Alright. Weak support on that account, although if this is a ground dwelling bird a picture of it on the ground would naturally have more EV. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 07:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
(It's on the root of a tree)
JJ Harrison (
talk) 11:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Thought so, but not readily apparent. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Can be made apparent by adding it to the image description perhaps?
Abudhar (
talk) 14:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Support Great pictures as always by this editor. Sharp, and can see the head clearly. Colours are also well balanced.
Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 09:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)reply
You're not the nominator. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 09:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Short for "I support as the nominator does", perhaps? Support as per the nominator would be the way that was normally said around here, Arctic Kangaroo!
J Milburn (
talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's was what I meant. Thanks for telling me, it's my first time voting here. Changed to support.
Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Support. Sharpness isn't great, but good enough given the conditions. Is it possible to tell if this is a male or female?
Kaldari (
talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
It's a male - the female plumage is duller, essentially.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 11:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
The article could do with a little bit of information, the like of which you have provided, and more.
Abudhar (
talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Support as per nom
Abudhar (
talk) 14:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Neutral It looks like a flash was used and this was a high end camera to capture a subject that's found only in difficult conditions for photography, but I don't think that I can call this among Wikipedia's best work due to the sharpness issues. --Pine✉ 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Support It has some details but meh; great EV. —
ΛΧΣ21 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)reply