Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BirdBeaks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] BirdBeaks

Feeding adaptations in beaks. From above nectarivore, granivore, specialist seed-eater, insectivore, raptorial, fishing, filter feeding, probing, surface probing, surface skimming and netting.
Feeding adaptations in beaks. From above nectarivore, granivore, specialist seed-eater, insectivore, raptorial, fishing, filter feeding, probing, surface probing, surface skimming and netting.
Reason
Excellent and highly encyclopedic SVG showing different types of bird's needed beak adaptations for different types of food.
Articles this image appears in
Bird
Creator
L. Shyamal
  • Support as nominator — Althepal 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • weak oppose I have mixed feelings about the cartoony look, but there are inconsistent line widths, opacities etc, that make it appear jumbled. Debivort 07:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the cartoony look, it allows to focus on the beak shapes without distractions. --Dschwen 12:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose (see below for vote change) Since in most cases there are hundreds of species of birds with each beak type, all with widely varying colors (both in feathers and beaks), it would be better if these were done in black-and-white silhouette, as is done by field guides like Peterson's (I believe). This would allow you to actually focus on the beak shape, not on anything else - I find the current image much too distracting. Other than silhouetting, maybe making the image grayscale would help. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-25 12:58Z
    • I also don't think this image covers the variety of different beaks out there. This diagram simply suits the need of giving one example of each type of food, but it doesn't really characterize all the types of beaks based on their shape. For example, [1]. Sure, the ones that are not included probably already fit into one of the generic food categories you have listed, but the point of the diagram is to be useful and comprehensive (maximally encyclopedic). See a more comprehensive example here. Are we trying to make a diagram that can be useful on its own, or that simply provides one common example of the different food types? (It's not like I'm asking for 3 dozen beaks to be included; just some of the different ones like the crossbill and the avocet). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-25 13:04Z
  • Comment. Are the different heads supposed to be to scale? If not, why are some smaller than others? Spikebrennan 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support The gradients bother me. I can understand wanting to introduce shadow, or give the appearance of dimension, but the rendering of the gradients in SVG is weak. I think that contributes to the cartooniness. Otherwise, the illustrations are well executed and professional. I feel like some sort of in image indexing or caption or numbering could help the image, and help identify what is being pictured in the caption better.-Andrew c 18:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear, simple, encyclopedic. — Kpalion(talk) 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 2 column version - Agree. - Alvesgaspar 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support You cannot get any more encyclopaedic than this. Chris Buttigiegtalk 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am not sure if the creator is allowed to vote(?). The image was created since Bird was a collaboration and we were trying to work it towards FA status. From the Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria, the only item that I would have trouble deciding is 3. The remaining 8, seem positive to me. Shyamal 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, you can vote. And I'd say that this is among Wikipedia's best work! ;) Althepal 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. Nicely drawn diagram, though there are some notable beak shapes that are missing, as Brian0918 has pointed out. --Mad Max 02:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Could be added,(maybe this weekend) but the original aim was to point out the diversity of food gathering and not the diversity of beak shapes per se. Shyamal 03:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. While I would still rather see it in black-and-white to keep the focus on the beak shapes and not on subspecies-specific colorings, this is an improvement. It's still not comprehensive and generic enough, but gives enough examples to my satisfaction. Good job! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-29 17:23Z
  • Weakest support Good diagram,but the organization inasingle column is at best impractical for actual use in articles. Circeus 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Just added another version with a modified layout. Now the labels are also needed. Shyamal 02:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Two column layout
Two column layout
  • Support 2 column version Circeus 03:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 2 col version As encyclopedic as it can get + its svg which also is awesome.. Yzmo talk 22:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like the second version better if: there would yet another type of beak (I don't know what, like for a thrasher, penguin, parrot, whatever other feeding type would best add to the illustration), so the flamingo isn't in the center like that. I would also feel more comfortable if they were spaced out a little more. Althepal 18:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are a lot of positive votes here, and I agree that this is a very nice piece of work, but I just can't quite give my support. I don't like the cartoony look; I'd much rather see a collection of photos or a collection of silhouettes (as Brian0918 brought up above). I'm also not the crazy about the selection of beaks; if we're going to include such unique bills as the skimmer and the flamingo, why not the shoebill (specialized for digging lungfish) or the spoonbill (specialized for non-visual aquatic hunting)? No woodpeckers (hammering for food) or nighthawks (trolling for insects)? Matt Deres 01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment You know what I'm thinking? It either has to have a small number of general feeding adaptations or a high number of specialized beaks, because this needs to do one of two things: illustrate how different types of food require different types of beaks (doesn't require many examples), or it needs to, encyclopedically, show all the unique differences for every type of feeding (many examples needed). I personally think this is doing a fine job with the former. I also don't think that these look cartoony; to me they look like realistic illustrations. IMO, a black-and-white would make it harder to see the beaks. Althepal 01:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 2 col version high quality and encyclopedic --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 13:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:BirdBeaksA.svg MER-C 03:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)