Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Sparrow on ledge.jpg

Sparrow (female in Australia)

Reason: Background does not meet current FP composition standards (i.e. Criteria 1c: it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements.). Common bird, not particularly difficult to capture higher quality image. Better picture of the same species and gender with better composition and background exists. Only used in one article, in a non-prominent and non-gender specific section while much higher quality FP exists.
Articles this image appears in: House Sparrow
Previous nomination/s: FP nom 2006, FP delist nom 2009
Nominator: Elekhh (talk)

Delist — Elekhh (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are the current composition standards for the background? franklin 02:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say the main subject is clearly distinguished from the background like this or this, and not like this or this. Elekhh (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: No longer our best work with house sparrows. The lighting and resolution are also drawbacks, not just the composition. As well as the current FP that Elekhh linked to, this image is also superior. Maedin\^talk 07:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom and reasons given in previous nominations --Muhammad(talk) 13:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Not great composition and detail could be better. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the composition plays with a brown over blueish, opposed colors in the color wheel which is somewhat superior to brown over green of must of the alternatives. franklin 21:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but with more contrast could look more like this or this, or this. Elekhh (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The House Sparrow's primary habitat is near human civilization, and this image gives a good impression of it. --Zoo Fari 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that's just one aspect. For FP status an image needs to meet all criteria, and this one is lacking contrast between the subject and the background, unlike this or this, which also reveal the urban habitat, and illustrate the article. Elekhh (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the not for vote Well. Not that the comparison is going to do good or bad to the nomination but, the not for voting has a sort distracting background. If it were all blue or all green probably it would. franklin 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4 of 5 required delist votes. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]