Created by me: User:Fcb981. I am unsure whether the female in front of the male detracts or is a benefit. Other comments are of course welcome.
Comments:
- This reminds of the male mallard out-of-water shot I put up here a week or so ago (see 4 or 5 entries below). WRT to your concern above, the female does detract a little from the male by obscuring, but this is largely irrelevant for me as, IMO, the value of this picture is the representation of the pair. That being said, however, I don't believe the overall quality in this shot (esp. sharpness and focus) exceeds the high standards set by the other three current mallard FPs. It lacks the close-up detail on feathers, beak, etc., and therefore doesn't have the extreme enc that I (personally) like to see in bird FPs. In short, it is a little "ordinary"; while I normally detest this (largely unhelpful) criticism on FPC, I think it is a valid concern here, as this nom would not only be compared against the normal FP criteria, but also against the current mallard FPs. Probably would've been an FP two or three years ago or pre-"Nature's Pics", but a less likely prospect now.
Having said all that, I really do like the picture, and truly believe that it would make a more illustrative lead image to the Mallard article. Sorry for the verbosity. --Malachirality (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- That looks like some serious artifacting around the female's feet. Also, I think the shadow on the female's side alone would kill this as a featured pictured. However, I think having the two together, in the format that they are in, is very encyclopedic and makes the picture better than it otherwise would be. - Enuja (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Seconder: