Burrowing Owl

Reason

Free of compression artifacts, main subject is in focus, and image is in high resolution

Articles this image appears in

Burrowing Owl

Creator

MONGO

• Support as nominator — YanA 16:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Continued support, but preference for version 2 for better color contrast.--YanA 07:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • continued support, regardless of edit.--YanA 04:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Fantastic image. ElinorD (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update — strong support transferred to Version 2. ElinorD (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent image, encyclopedic and technically near-perfect.--Guinnog 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Renewed support for version 3. Not convinced by the opposers' arguments; this image is of excellent quality and illustrates the subject of the article very well. It maybe could be even better if it was an in-the-wild shot, or if it was burrowing or exhibiting one behaviour or another, but we have pictures like that. This one is an excellent high resolution shot which identifies its subject well. --John 07:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC) (formerly Guinnog)[reply]
• Weak Support It's good, except for the sharpness. Compare it with an FP like this one. See how detailed the feathers are? That said, I don't want to raise the bar too high for Featured status.--HereToHelp 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support version 2 Much improved.--HereToHelp 14:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Image is shady, which makes it look washed out. Circeus 19:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support version 2 Circeus 05:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have four different pictures of almost the exact same image...currently working on deciding which one can be used to best cleanup any shadowing and contrast issues. I'll try and upload another version for comparison.--MONGO 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Beautiful, highly illustrative and good graphical quality. Phaedriel - 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version #2 looks even better to me. My support stands, now shifting to that enhanced version. Phaedriel - 18:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great looking image; it will make a good featured picture. Acalamari 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image 1 is great, image 2 is greater. Supporting image 2. Acalamari 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, beautiful. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, attractive, encyclopedic and well-composed, it is high resolution, free of significant compression artifacts and in focus. The contrasting background color helps to draw attention to the subject. The Burrowing Owl article describes the legs, toes and white chin patch. that describes those features. The lighting helps to draw attention to these features. The color balance of the image 2 is more neutral and is the version I prefer. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good image, encyclopedic. Version 2. --rogerd 13:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good close-up with natural appearance - Very good. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version #2 is an improvement. Much better, so move my support to the enhanced photo. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is that thing sticking out above the leg a phallus? If not, what is it? If so, why is it not hidden (as bird phalluses normally are except when mating, according to bird anatomy)?--ragesoss 03:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha...! I almost spit up my water! That is his right leg, tucked up under his feathers. I have other shots with him standing on both feet but the quality level is inferior.--MONGO 04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - excellent image, "phallus" notwithstanding. Version 2 is preferable as the colour balance appears more natural, somehow :) - Alison ☺ 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both versions I'm not sure what everyone sees in these, but I find them over-sharpened the background distracting, the cropping a bit tight and the environment highly unnatural (doesn't look much like scrubby grasslands the species typically inhabits, the tree behind it looks deciduous). With the bird crouched down like that it doesn't show the species' distinctive long legs (I find this image much better). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been recently told by MONGO that picture was taken at an indoor aviary - so it's not a natural environment to begin with. I had failed to consider the background when I nominated the picture, but instead it seemed like a good species shot and as such added encyclopedic value. Whether the background and leg issue detracts from that is something that's going to be decided with continued voting.--YanA 16:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The image to description should probably be amended at this point.--YanA 16:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, the image Pharaoh Hound suggests needs to be cropped, has very unnatural leg bandings and I can't see it's face! I also don't see the "distinctive trait" uh, the burrow in that image either. It is of high resolution though, but one wonders how an image that is so unnatural and lacks it's full face could be better than one that doesn't suffer from these kinds of issues.--MONGO 19:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm not saying that the image I suggested is perfect either. After some more digging around I found this one which, though blurry, is otherwise better than this candidate and the first image I suggested as it not only shows two adults clearly but also two juveniles, illustrating their social nature (also has better lighting and more natural settings). Or this image. True, it's not freely licensed, but I'm merely trying to point out that it is entirely possible to get better photos of this species. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unfortunately, even though it's a blurry image that's been oversharpened, the biggest problem is the completely incorrect habitat. I used to see dozens of burrowing owls every day on the way to work in New Mexico; they were always in a sparsely grassy desert wasteland, no trees, no wood, no leaves (and certainly no plants like you see the background, which could not thrive in the desert). The trait that makes these animals unique - the fact that their homes are big holes in the dirt - is not shown here at all. These images are easily reproducible, and should be reproduced in their natural environment. There also needs to be some sort of scale, because these owls are pretty small (sort of like the oompa loompas among the owls), but from this image one could easily be led to believe they're quite large. These problems make the image unencyclopedic, misleading, and not particularly useful. Its only positive is the high-resolution, which I'm guessing is the reason for most of these supports, but in light of these other problems, high-resolution is not enough. Given the reproducibility, I can't support.

  So, to summarize,

  Pros:

  1. High resolution

  Cons:

  1. Blurry, oversharpened (of minor concern)
  2. Incorrect environment (HERE's where you would see burrowing owls normally)
  3. Incorrect plant life
  4. Animal's unique trait (their hole-for-a-home) is not even shown (deal-breaker)
  5. Scale is misleading - these birds are very small (poll: who here thought this bird was tiny when they saw this image?)
  6. Easily reproducible
  7. Very easily reproducible
  8. Very, very easily reproducible — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-02 18:25Z

  You need to read about the habitat of the burrowing owl...they are not just found in desert wastelands. They live primarily in the middle of the North American continent and are a species of special concern in Florida, which is hardly suffering from desertification. I fail to grasp what you mean by (repeated) issues of it being reproducible. Precisely what is the animals' unique trait I wonder. However, on the whole, I do agree that the image is way less than perfect...especially compared with other images of other species.--MONGO 18:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, the deal-breaker is that the image doesn't even show the single trait that identifies the burrowing owls (their home-in-the-ground, as I said twice). I keep repeating that's it's easily reproducible to show why the listed Cons for the image are really problems, and not just me being nitpicky - if the image wasn't easily reproducible, then I would be more accepting of some (but not all) of these problems. Again, the image provides no scale (these birds are small, this image makes them seem medium-to-large). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-02 22:04Z

  On the other hand, the image does illustrate many of the distiguishing field marks of the species, e.g., bright yellow eyes, white eyebrow, incompletely feathered legs, gray toes, missing "ear" tufts and white throat. Only the long legs and flattened facial disc are not well-depicted. Regarding the scale criticism, the leaves of the background do indicate scale to those familiar with the species (but that does not include me nor probably the average reader). I note that some reviewers of these images may object to the inclusion of artificial objects (that would indicate scale) in images of nature. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Pharaoh Hound and Brian0918.--Svetovid 19:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture, brings out the beauty of the owl. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 14:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support It is a excellent image, but the background is far too distracting in my opinion; the bottom half almost blends into itself. Chris Buttigieg^talk 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sorry, I'm just not inspired. Compared to a lot of our bird images, this one looks unsharp, noisy and poorly lit. It also lacks important context for this species, the apparent scale is misleading and there's an aura of "zoo shot" about it that I was aware of before I read that it was taken in an aviary. --YFB ¿ 16:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Pharaoh Hound, Brian0918 and YFB. --KFP (talk | contribs) 08:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This was always a borderline submission on technical grounds, not helped by a harsh and uncomplementary background. Deferring to the more ornithologically informed opposes, I can't see any reason to promote. mikaul^talk 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support They're both beautiful images of birds in their natural enviroment. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, actually as noted several times above, it's not in its natural environment, which is among the reasons for opposing. --YFB ¿ 22:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why is looks so unhealthy...it can't exist anywhere except in semi-arid climates. What difference does it make as to where the picture was taken...it's used to illustrate the bird, not his hole. I guess since I would have better off if I got an image of the Owl near "earthen berms; cement culverts; cement, asphalt, rock, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement", since that is also their "habitat"....[1]--MONGO 22:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I can manage without sarcasm, thanks, MONGO. My point is that since bushes and trees and aviaries are not its natural habitat, "beautiful image of bird[s] in its natural environment" is not a reason to support. Hence my use of the qualifier "among" before "reasons for opposing". Furthermore, if we really want to be deconstructing people's comments, "beautiful" is not a Featured Picture Criteria either. --YFB ¿ 23:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, everyone who knows me knows I am sarcastic, don't take it personally and sorry if it seemed insulting. I do, however, think that, especially for the purposes of an encyclopedia, that a detailed image of a animal species is more important than capturing one in it's precise habitat. The aviary is an outdoor one, in Nebraska, where the birds are native, just for the record. I really do appreciate the attention the image has gotten regardless of whether it is rated as a FP or not. Thanks!--MONGO 03:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, I'll just say they're beautiful birds, regardless of habitat. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 00:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just out of curiousity, how long after seven days do nominations go before they're closed? I'd guess three days from some of the past nominations, but can someone confirm or debunk that. Many thanks.--YanA 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically voting is closed after the seventh day, although whether it gets closed immediately, moved to "7 days is up" or left a bit longer depends largely on the availability of people with time to go through the closing procedure, which is fairly tortuous. In this case, it's been moved to the Additional Input section because although it has (had?) a supermajority of supports based on vote counting alone, several people have expressed doubt at the Featured Picture Candidates talk page about whether or not it should be promoted, due to the apparently stronger arguments made by opposers than by the majority of supporters. --YFB ¿ 01:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Poor lighting, overcropped. --Pixelface 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Maybe my standards for FP pics are too high, but my feeling is that (historicity or uniqueness aside) the pictures should be the best possible shots. This is a perfectly lovely picture, but it fails to show the bird in its natural habitat. The minor imperfections in the picture quality don't bother me, but the fact is I think the article would be better served by a picture of the bird in its normal surroundings. Matt Deres 13:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Just so you know...normal surroundings also include: "earthen berms; cement culverts; cement, asphalt, rock, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement", since that is also their "habitat"....[2].--MONGO 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that the first time you wrote it. Just so you know... lush broadleaf undergrowth isn't on your list. Hence my objection. Please don't take the votes personally; FWIW, I wish I could take shots as good as this one. I'm not objecting because I have any fault with your picture; I'm objecting because I think a slightly different shot would be significantly more encyclopedic. Matt Deres 22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't take it personally...but the point is that these owls are highly adaptable and indeed they do live almost anywhere they can find a burrow or opening, including forest fringe environments. [3], [4]--MONGO 05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have convinced me. I've struck-through my opposition above and now vote to Support. I don't have a strong preference regarding which version to use, but I think the bottom picture (second edit) looks a bit nicer.Matt Deres 16:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1 This has the best color and crop, imo. Very nice picture. Althepal 02:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, Per Brian. ^8thstar 18:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. MER-C 11:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]