Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/White-cheeked starling

White-cheeked starling

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2015 at 19:08:32 (UTC)

Reason: Beautiful image already featured on Commons. ~~A few days ago I replaced the previous, much smaller and softer image with this one for the article lede.~~ This image is of a hybrid bird.
Articles in which this image appears: White-cheeked starling
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Laitche

Support as nominator – Pine^✉ 19:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Support. Very nice indeed. I would say perhaps a bit too much noise reduction but only a minor issue. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. Nice and sharp. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw my support on account of Pine's revelation below – a pity because it's good. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Sharp. Hafspajen (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much EV Alborzagros (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ What a star(ling)! Belle (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pine:, are you sure it is not just a juvenile? That's what I thought it was when I looked at the article. I know the description on commons says "hybrid", but it looks similar to these pictures which people (probably not certified starling-species identification experts admittedly) have identified as juvenile white-cheeked starlings [1], [2] (from [3]); it seems that the beak is not always that strong orange. Anyway, it is at best a slightly atypical juvenile so I de-support; since you've withdrawn it anyway my support/de-support is meaningless; I don't know why I didn't do something more exciting than look at pictures of starlings all morning; I should get a life. Belle (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Belle: I checked, but I don't think that it's a juvenile, unfortunately. --Pine^✉ 16:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Composition rockzzzz DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I figured out what was bothering me about this image. The color of the bill is different than the color of the bill shown in the other photos. It turns out that this image is of a hybrid, which is unfortunate because this lowers the EV of the image, although the technical and aesthetic quality remain. Pinging the above users in case anyone wants to change their !vote: Diliff, Chris Woodrich, Bruce1ee, Hafspajen, Tremonist, Alborzagros, Belle, Fredlyfish4, DreamSparrow --Pine^✉ 19:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the honest update. I'm not sure how this affects the nomination then (and indeed its place in the article). I can see that you've moved it out of the infobox (good idea) and into the article body with the caption clearly identifying it as a hybrid. I suppose it is no longer of the standard that we'd expect of a featured picture, not in image quality, but in EV. So I think I'll grudgingly have to switch my vote to oppose. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very sad that I have to do this, but unless we have an article about this kind of hybrid, I don't think the EV is there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination after further consideration of the EV issues. The photo is well suited to Commons FP, but here on English Wikipedia we give priority to EV, and after reflection I agree that the EV is too weak. --Pine^✉ 23:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Probably hybrid with Red-billed starling :) --Laitche (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine：Sorry for late reply, The Ornithological Society of Japan was already reporting the interspecific hybridization of Sturnus sericeus and Sturnus cineraceus. [2] I didn't realize this nomination... --Laitche (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: if you can get that hybridization information into the Sturnus sericeus and Sturnus cineraceus articles alongside the photo, with the information written in English, then you or I can renominate this photo for ENWP featured picture. Documenting additional references and information about the hybridization will be helpful in establishing the encyclopedic value of the photo. --Pine^✉ 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I had good English skill, I'd like to do so but unfortunately not... And I don't mind the decline or withdraw of this nom, and thanks for the nomination :) --Laitche (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]