Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alexandrine parakeet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Psittacula krameri
Contributed to the article of the Rose-ringed_Parakeet.
- This subpage was listed on WP:FPC at 04:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. -- Shivu § Mesg 4 Mè § 13:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Besides cropping less closely, can you also not compress the image so much (start with the original uncompressed picture, and set the JPG image quality higher). This will make the file size larger but the image will be better.
--brian0918™ 
16:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Non-notable parrot picture. --bodnotbod 19:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that 'non-notable' is the right word for what you have to say. Perhaps 'not interesting' is more what you meant? As for my opinion, I will oppose as it is quite low-quality. Raven4x4x 00:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- "Notable: Worthy of note or notice; remarkable:". I repeat. A non-notable picture of a parrot. I make no judgement, being no kind of parrot expert, as to whether that individual parrot made an outstanding contribution to the field or will be remembered (when it becomes an ex-parrot) for its metaphysical poetry or for producing critically acclaimed social realist cinema .bodnotbod 21:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know your meaning. I'm just used to seeing notability mentioned more in Votes for Deletion, not here. It's a slightly different use of the word. Raven4x4x 10:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- "Notable: Worthy of note or notice; remarkable:". I repeat. A non-notable picture of a parrot. I make no judgement, being no kind of parrot expert, as to whether that individual parrot made an outstanding contribution to the field or will be remembered (when it becomes an ex-parrot) for its metaphysical poetry or for producing critically acclaimed social realist cinema .bodnotbod 21:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that 'non-notable' is the right word for what you have to say. Perhaps 'not interesting' is more what you meant? As for my opinion, I will oppose as it is quite low-quality. Raven4x4x 00:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. A little too tightly cropped. Enochlau 11:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, the new version is better in terms of the framing and I like the new colour, but I can't get over the lack of sharpness, especially in the head. I suppose you would need the original image, and not the compressed jpeg version, to do anything about that, but I'm not sure if you have that or not. Raven4x4x 05:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- The v2 is without compression, I have just uploaded with more sharpening (v3). Shivu § Mesg 4 Mè § 03:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Good work, it looks much better. Still not an FP for me, but is now a much better picture. --bodnotbod 18:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- The v2 is without compression, I have just uploaded with more sharpening (v3). Shivu § Mesg 4 Mè § 03:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk + new 15:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
