Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:House wren - food drops.ogv

File:House wren - food drops.ogv, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 17:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:House wren - food drops.ogv Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:House wren - food drops.ogv

•  Info created by qmnonic - uploaded by Kozuch - nominated by Kozuch -- Kozuch (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kozuch (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Pity for the resolution, but the quality, educativeness and rarity of this free video gets my support! Diti the penguin — 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I intentionally uploaded the lower resolution even as HD is available (because of people with low bandwidth). There is no problem to upload the HD version, you can watch it on Flickr for now. As there are close to no official rules for video now, I just did not know how to behave, whether to do low-res or high-res. --Kozuch (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Low resolution (of course: low to a reasonable scale) is better, because of the bandwith. Remember that you aren't very likely to put an 800px wide video into an article. And even if you insert it as, say, 480px, it won't increase the speed of loading anyway. Wolf (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, so I suppose current 640×360 pixels is not a real low-res for a video. If someone thinks this cant get featured at this resolution, I will upload HD.--Kozuch (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I suspect in the long term we'll want high res, just as we do for photos. It can't be that hard to produce scaled down versions, but it's impossible to scale up. 99of9 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's a rare sight that someone dares to nominate anything but a static picture here. Great quality! -- JovanCormac 07:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - High educational value and interesting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I think the first two seconds should be cut from the video. There's nothing happening, really. -- JovanCormac 20:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the video is not too long and doesn't need to be cut, is less than 30 seconds, and the first two are precious: you can hear the bird and begin to understand what is the subject --Phyrexian (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Right, its very educational and interesting, but this is commons and not wikipedia. And for videos the same rules should apply as for pictures. The composition is rather boring --Simonizer (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you completely miss a point here. There is no language and that means this video is nicely useful accross various projects and languages, that makes it uniques for a Commons (featured) candidate.--Kozuch (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. I don't think you can see anything well enough - the bird is tiny, and we can't even see it feeding the chicks, just going into the box. It's nice, but not quite wow enough. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support As Jovan --Phyrexian (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - As Simonizer, common video not close to FP status. I also have some doubts as whether videos should be evaluated here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunatelly dedicated process for video does not exist yet. --Kozuch (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Silversmith. 99of9 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Abstain We have no guidelines about videos. /Daniel78 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)