Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Dacelo novaeguineae waterworks.jpg

Laughing Kookaburra[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2011 at 04:19:17 (UTC)

Reason: New picture has more detail considerably higher resolution, better lighting and a less distracting background.
Articles this image appears in: Laughing Kookaburra, Kookaburra
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dacelo novaeguineae waterworks.jpg
Nominator: JJ Harrison (talk)

Delist and Replace — JJ Harrison (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like them both. I'm reluctant to delist the older one, the resolution doesn't seem very much higher in the new one and there's not much wrong with the old one. I don't see a problem with them both as FPs. Pine^talk 04:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The resolution of the original is reasonably good, and at nearly 4 Mega-pixels is in fact better than some of the featured pics successfully going through currently. I think the tail in the original might be slightly camouflaged, but it's still clear. We can see the talon in the original. TehGrauniad (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJ, is the newer picture of a juvenile? It's significantly whiter. It would be nice to have some clarification, and if there is indeed some significance to the different plumages, then I'd say keep and nominate the new one separately. Chick Bowen 21:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- New image is an adult. The old one may just have the contrast a little too high I think (I got better, calibrated monitors in the interim). JJ Harrison (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. I still like the old one. It is possible that the contrast or just the softer lighting is bringing out the brown streaks more than in full light, but I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing. I guess I'll remain neutral. They're both great shots, though. Chick Bowen 01:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a signficance to the slightly alternative plumage, I would have no great objection to them both being featured in theory. However, if not, I do not support multiple FPs. We're not Commons- multiple images identical in all significant respects cannot all be featured. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original is a worthy FP and has a number of qualities which the proposed replacement doesn't: the background appears more natural, the feet can be seen and somehow is more smiley :) If identical in quality I always prefer landscape format for Wiki as it fits the layout better. --Elekhh (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replace Better composition and tail more visible --Muhammad(talk) 08:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, tending to keep. As per nom, the new one has a clearer, less busy background, in particular the branch behind the tail in the old one that sort of acts a camouflage hiding it, esp at thumb. But the old one has the characteristic kookaburra puffed out chest; I don't know what's up with the bird in the new one, but he's really flat-chested, perhaps just landed or just about to take off? If not for the chest issue I'd support a replacement, but that really puts me off. --jjron (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The original has a better background that the new one lacks, and I just prefer the old one in terms of looks. —mc10 (t/c) 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The old one has a superior aesthetic, that, as many mentioned, looks more natural. I don't find the tail at all hard to see at full size. Cowtowner (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]