Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Weisskopf Seeadler haliaeetus leucocephalus 8 amk.jpg

Portrait of a Bald Eagle

Reason: Good composition, quality and sharpness
Articles this image appears in: Bald Eagle
Creator: AngMoKio

Support as nominator --AngMoKio (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good detail of the head (shame about the DOF softening the body a bit) and a very 'classic' pose of the Bald Eagle. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could we have the EXIF please? --Muhammad(talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't edit the pic currently as it is on the front page of Czech Wikipedia. So I post the info here: 1/200, f/6.3, 160mm --AngMoKio (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Existing Bald Eagle Portrait FP: . --jjron (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, The existing image above is of less quality then this one, definitely support this version, better composition — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps should have been put up as a 'Delist and replace'? --jjron (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't it possible for them to coexist? --AngMoKio (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, although if a better one comes along, it often prompts the question of whether the older one is still meeting our standards. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What he said, and it's often a matter of whether the new one adds any new 'information'. If not, and it's no better than the existing one then the existing tends to stay, but if it is better then there's usually a good argument for delist and replace rather than just piling them up. --jjron (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Beautiful photo. The evaluation of the existed bald eagle photo as a FP is a matter for separate discussion. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OK I'm gonna buck the trend here but I actually think the composition on this one is quite poor. For a portrait the wings are entirely unnecessary and they just look cut off. This is like a half hearted mix of a portrait and a body shot. Just the head would have been far more effective IMO - eg [1]. Alternatively to get the wings in I'd go with a breast shot --Fir0002 11:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks really good in thumbnail but apart from the beak, eye and part of the wing, pretty much everything else seems out of focus. --Muhammad(talk) 05:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted The dreaded 4S/2O → sorry, but Muhammad has a good point. --wadester 16 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]