Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Odin and Thor, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30a.jpg

File:Odin and Thor, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30a.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2016 at 11:25:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Odin and Thor, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30a.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Odin and Thor, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30a.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
• Note: at the time of the nomination, the birds were misidentified as Odin and Thor based on an out-of-date source. They are in fact Jubilee and Munin, which has been confirmed by Chris Skaife, Ravenmaster at the Tower. -- Colin (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Info I'm offering this candidate for review, not as a plain species identification photo but as a fun portrait of two characters: Odin and Thor, Ravens, at the Tower of London. These are two of the six or seven ravens that are kept at the Tower, and legend claims "if the Tower of London ravens are lost or fly away, the Crown will fall and Britain with it". At full size, there's a little lack of sharpness, but downsized it looks better and many other bird FPs (e.g. this Forest Raven are small size. They look like they are performing a little song-and-dance routine. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - I'm glad you explained the nature of the photo. The birds aren't that sharp compared to the "exemplar of x bird" photos, but it's a funny portrait of these intelligent birds, and with the context and background, the photo really makes it, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yes, it is funny and I also thank for the explanation I had no idea about that. The subject though is not sharp at all and the angle possibly no the best with the tower in the background between both ravens Poco² 12:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support technical excellence isn't everything. The image is just too funny, too original not to support. Well done! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think the technical quality is too poor. Charles (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment @Ikan Kekek, Poco a poco, Martin Falbisoner, and Charlesjsharp: I have applied Photoshop's shake reduction filter with a mask for the birds, and I think this improves things at 100%. You may need to use Ctrl-F5 to refresh any cached JPG in your browser. -- Colin (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Much better, but still not FP for me, I'm afraid. It's unfortunate that one of the towers is right in the middle of the background. Charles (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - Thanks for the ping. Doesn't change my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've never tried that filter in Photoshop. I think though that in this case it didn't help so much. Some areas look a bit better others a bir worse I'm afraid. Poco² 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Now that's personality! When something spontaneous looks perfectly posed like these guys do, you've done something special. INeverCry 01:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Surreal, they seem to talk and ...to dance. So surreal that during a time I thought they were not alive.... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. They certainly are alive and this was a lucky shot (they aren't trained to dance!) Here they look best buddies, and seconds later they look like they have fallen out with each other. -- Colin (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
    • They don't look mad at each other in the other photo, just looking in opposite directions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Question I like those poor animals very much. Life of which is beeing crippled in the name of Queen. Making commercials out of it is like making man invalid to promote tourism. Any thought ?! --Mile (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The article Ravens of the Tower of London confirms what I was told when visiting, that the animals are well looked after and live twice as long as in the wild. They can fly, but not far. Life in the wild is no picnic. So, I don't think it is easy to say whether this is a net bad thing. -- Colin (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support So funny! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support is Harry Potter somewhere around??? --Hubertl 14:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Since the subject is the ravens, I don't mind the unsharp Tower in the back—it's still recognizable. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Fun, but nothing is sharp. --Yann (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Poco. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 18:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per Martin Falbisoner. --Cephas (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes