This is the current revision of this page, as edited by imported>MalnadachBot at 02:07, 10 February 2023(Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 02:07, 10 February 2023 by imported>MalnadachBot(Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
Support as nominator --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - A bit small, but good Ev. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
sorry, I have to correct and send a larger version! --Luc Viatour (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments - this image is in a gallery, and I much rather prefer the image in the infobox of the article. Whichever image passes, it should be the head image for the article. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Somewhat soft, and it has blown highlights on the neck.--ragesoss (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - a good shot but it's agallery image that adds little value to the article because a similar but superior - in terms of encyclopaedic value - image which shows a greater proportion of the bird (tail, wing, legs) is used in the main body of the article (File:Lophophanes cristatus Luc Viatour 4.jpg). Guest9999 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Except the auto-iso seems to have killed that one. :( Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's not feature picture quality but in terms of an encyclopaedic illustration of the bird it is superior to the image nominated. Guest9999 (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
