Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indian peacock displaying
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Indian peacock displaying
- Reason
- This is a much better depiction of a peacock displaying than the existing FP (sorry, Fir...)
- Articles this image appears in
- Sexual selection, Peafowl
- Creator
- User:BS Thurner Hof
- Nominator
- Alvesgaspar
- Support — Alvesgaspar 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Agree that this is probably the best of the bunch. Just slightly better composition than Fir0002's. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support Agree, this is better than Fir's, because the aspect ration is way better (It also fits normal screens) and the composition is better. But i wish we could had a little bit of the legs too (for enc reasons). --Arad 18:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support IV. S.D. ¿п? § 00:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support - yyyeeeaaahhhh...this one is better than Fir0002's. I wish we had an animation of this display; since seeing them in England I learned that they curve the tails over a female and SHAKE it. --Iriseyes 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support Booksworm Talk to me! 08:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Very nice picture
- Weak-ish Support Needs more legs. Noclip 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. While this is a stunning photo, for enc reasons animal photos require the whole animal to be in the shot, not cut off at the edges. As a bird that can be easily reshot, I have to oppose. Pstuart84 Talk 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Pstuart. It's cut off on every side, and I can barely see anything of the body. There's a bit of blur on the right side too. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 19:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Much too tightly cropped. --dm (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It may be better than Fir's but it is badly cut off. like 40% of the bird isn't there. -Fcb981 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
