Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Eclectus roratus.jpg
- Reason
- Sharp and nice lighting.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Eclectus Parrot, Psittaculini, Eclectus
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Nominator --George Chernilevsky talk 11:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- It may be sharp, but I think that it is not very well composed. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support Very nice colour, details and composition --Muhammad(talk) 13:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think it does not show the colours that would be visible from the front. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Support- good quality image. Can you confirm the subspecies? Elekhh (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is a side view and only the tips of its feet are seen. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Accept Snowman's point that the pose is not ideal, as the characteristic plumage which differentiates the subspecies is on the abdomen. Still I find it a high quality image with very nice composition. With the recent abundance of bird images on FPC it seems that the expectations are gettting higher :). Elekhh (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is a side view and only the tips of its feet are seen. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Only a minute portion of the red and blue is shown, and it would be much better if more of the blue and red is seen in a more frontal picture. It is not a very good angle and so the bird looks almost entirely green. It would be better to show a view where more of the front is visible and more of the blue and red can be seen. I do not think this view of a parrot is a very good image to put in infoboxes. It is not well composed - only a small portion of its feet can be seen and its colours can not be seen well except for green. To me this has much less EV, because its colours are obscured. Even if the subspecies was known, the EV would not be elevated because its colours are not shown well. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe a silly question, but why's it so puffy and fluffy? I did some Googling, and I didn't see any other parrots like this one- see this, this and this, for instance. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say it was trying to keep warm, except the weather on that day was mid 30s, so I'm not sure. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have a female version of this bird at my home. They fluff up like this from time to time, but often for only a short bit of time. To me, it appears something similar to stretching, or a "chill", but I am not an expert by any means. Did you get to hear this bird? These birds are extremely loud! --Chrismiceli (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say it was trying to keep warm, except the weather on that day was mid 30s, so I'm not sure. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Snowman. Lovely photo, but I agree about the problems with its EV in those articles. It is a good illustration of the "fluffing" behaviour, and I would reconsider if it found a home in an article covering this. -- Avenue (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am in complete agreement with Avenue. This a lovely shot, and very well illustrates this fluffing, whatever it is. If we can get an an article somewhere on that, I would support. I will ask around... J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have asked Casliber, who I know writes about birds, here. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a book reference: [1] Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am in complete agreement with Avenue. This a lovely shot, and very well illustrates this fluffing, whatever it is. If we can get an an article somewhere on that, I would support. I will ask around... J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose because of fluffiness. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment many birds in captivity in Australia are apparently hybrids between polychloros and solomonensis, as Sydney's Taronga Park Zoo had many of these in a large aviary many years ago. The Australian subspecies macgillivrayi is way way up the top of Cape York and hard to get to. Some more recent birds are actually of this subspecies. I have not read enough about the subspecies to be able to check which one it is. Another way would be to contact Melbourne Zoo. If I have time I can try and ring them today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted —Maedin\talk 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
