Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Malacorhynchus membranaceus - Bushell's Lagoon.jpg

Pink-eared Duck

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 09:01:00 (UTC)

Reason: High quality. Less common and harder to photograph than the other ducks noms.
Articles in which this image appears: Pink-eared duck, List of birds of Australia
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the biggest problem with this one is the bit of branch on its bill meant I could not interpret the oddly-shaped sides of the bill until I compared it with other images (kind of looked like it was eating something, and the sides of the bill were the thing it was eating. Other than that, it's excellent. I know, however, that my mind is simply bad at interpreting that sort of thing, so does anyone else have that problem? If not, I'm happy to Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 09:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like mud to me, but it's real. Support any by the way (prefer retouched). MER-C 11:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support original, opposed retouched There's a subtle band of colour where the stick was, as well as the shadow of it on the side of the bill. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 02:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would it be sacrilegious to clone out that little stick on the bill? --Janke | Talk 20:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have had bird noms which had details cloned out, examples [1], [2]. I support removing the small branch. Bammesk (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's ask JJH to clone out ihe stick in his RAW file, right? When done, I'll support. --Janke | Talk 13:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, neither of those clones affected the main subject, which is a significant difference. FP criteria say, "Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable." While "misrepresented" is obviously subjective, cloning out the branch would mean featuring a picture where part of the subject was in fact cloned from elsewhere (perhaps in ways that subtly misrepresent the subject). This seems inadvisable to me. TSP (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's room for reasonable disagreement here, but I don't think that that "part of the subject [being] cloned from elsewhere" necessarily implies that the subject is being "misrepresented". I think a change would be relatively innocuous - indeed, given the potential for confusion as to what is and isn't part of the duck's bill, I think cloning could here reduce confusion, and thus (inadvertent) misrepresentation. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a crack at it soon. There seems to be some precedent for cloning in for e.g. digital restorations. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the cloning is not needed here. The twig is on the bird rather than being in the background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, clonong is needed. Otherwise, you'd think that the strange shape of the bill is just mud or other stuff. Cloning away the twig would leave the very peculiar shape of the bill clearly to be seen without confusion. Conditional support if twig is cloned away. --Janke | Talk 11:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an edit using the content aware fill tool. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support retouched only - now, you can clearly see the shape of the bill. --Janke | Talk 22:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Retouched – Bammesk (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original but happy to go with the majority if the retouched is preferred. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose retouched, neutral original - it's a good photo, but I'd argue that if a reasonably reproducible shot can't be featured without cloning in part of the main subject, it probably shouldn't be featured - a photo where part of the thing depicted is fake falls short of being the best of Wikipedia photography. (This is distinct from restorations, where it isn't possible to retake the shot and a restoration gives the best possible version.) TSP (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The stick thing arrived there from feeding, so I think it has some EV. As far as me getting another photo without one, I would most likely need to get on a plane and visit another part of Australia. Per the article they're only nomadic visitors to my part of the country. This was the case in Tasmania too where I last saw one in 2011! JJ Harrison (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I sympathise; and it's certainly a good, valuable, encyclopedic shot, and if editors feel that it's featurable with the stick in place, that's great. If editors feel that the stick needs to be edited out, my feeling is that moves it below featurable standard. Not that it's not a great shot; but featured images should be the very best, most encyclopedically-valuable possible works among the 50 million images available to Wikipedia; and in my view, if part of the main subject of a potentially (even if not trivially) reproducible photo has had to be faked to make up for a perceived problem, that moves it below that bar. TSP (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I beg to disagree. The removal of the twig has made the bill shape clear; originally I thought the edge of the bill was mud! Besides, if JJH had shot the picture a few seconds before the duck got the twig on its bill, we'd have a photo just like the retouched one. Removing something confusing that isn't a part of the duck increases EV, IMO. --Janke | Talk 22:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the images has enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]