Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Giant Squid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Giant Squid, 7 meters long, encased in ice
Although there are some obvious flaws in the clarity of the image, they were unavoidable since the object is frozen in a 3.5 tonne block of ice. The 250kg squid was caught off the coast of New Zealand is approx 7 m long. The photo was taken in the Melbourne Aquarium, who purchased the squid at the cost of more than $100,000. Pretty amazing subject, which adds significantly to the article.
- Support Self Nom --Fir0002 10:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong oppose I've seen the picture on your userpage, and it never did sit right with me. For one this, the whole thing is unclear. Can't be helped I know, but it's still not very appealing to my eyes. The other problem is that the sense of scale is non-existant. I never would have thought that it was a gaint squid if you had not have said so. It looks more like it's only a foot long. Sorry Fir0002, but far from your best work IMO. --SeizureDog 11:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - despite obvious difficulties in taking picture, this is the best possible picture to illustrate the giant squid article. It clearly shows the giant eye and tentacles, and illustrates the relative size of the various parts of the body. Warofdreams talk 11:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's probably the best image of a Giant Squid. But just because it's the best illustration of the subject, doesn't mean that it's FP quality. --Pharaoh Hound 12:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support, I've seen this squid at Melbourne Aquarium, and this is an excellent picture of a difficult subject. Something to give a sense of scale would be good though. —Pengo 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the pic, but it's not especially encyclopaedic due to the scale problems. I really can't tell how big this thing is - looks ~2-3 foot long maybe? But for 250kg I must be way off. Also the colours caused presumably by the lighting in the museum are pretty, but a little distracting and inappropriate. Stevage 13:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, in agreement with SeizureDog's comments.
This is another image that requires information not present in the image itself to render it impressive. It's just a strange, medium-to-low quality image of a squid at first glance. It's only after you read the text and find out why it looks strange (in a block of ice) and the fact that it's 7 meters long that it seems at all impressive. I guess I'm hung up on the idea that a featured picture should be impressive on its own and not require article text to 'make' it impressive.-- moondigger 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)- Many Wikipedia FP's require captions to explain what you're seeing; they wouldn't have become FPs unless people were told what was special about their content. That's fine, of course, since this is Wikipedia and not Commons. Here, images are invariably tied to articles. If you would like to judge images solely on their aesthetic appeal, Commons has an FPC process as well. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-08 04:25
Many Wikipedia FP's require captions to explain what you're seeing; they wouldn't have become FPs unless people were told what was special about their content. That doesn't appear to be true based on looking through Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_visible, where the majority of the images are arresting at first sight, even if I don't know exactly what they depict at first. This particular image is undoubtedly useful to the article it adorns, but I think it lacks a visual punch that a featured picture should have. However even if we ignore these particular concerns,I still agree with SeizureDog about the lack of clarity (due to the ice) and the absence of a visual clue as to its scale. -- moondigger 22:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Many Wikipedia FP's require captions to explain what you're seeing; they wouldn't have become FPs unless people were told what was special about their content. That's fine, of course, since this is Wikipedia and not Commons. Here, images are invariably tied to articles. If you would like to judge images solely on their aesthetic appeal, Commons has an FPC process as well. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-08 04:25
- Oppose. Horrible picture. Ya, we know, it's a hard subject, but don't try and make the photo an FP! --Preyquis 18:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
-
-
-
- Here are a few quick examples. You've already said you wouldn't support the only known photo of Chopin, no matter how important, simply for the lack of aesthetic appeal (which was true for all photos back then). I'd suggest going to Commons FPC, where your stricter criteria would be more at home. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 04:37
- Brian, let's pretend I never said anything in the strikethrough text. I know it really bothers you to think I would use criteria to judge an image that you don't agree with. What's left after we ignore the stuff you're objecting to is still an "oppose." -- moondigger 12:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine. Just don't selectively read the Featured Picture criteria in the future. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 14:16
- Brian, let's pretend I never said anything in the strikethrough text. I know it really bothers you to think I would use criteria to judge an image that you don't agree with. What's left after we ignore the stuff you're objecting to is still an "oppose." -- moondigger 12:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Here are a few quick examples. You've already said you wouldn't support the only known photo of Chopin, no matter how important, simply for the lack of aesthetic appeal (which was true for all photos back then). I'd suggest going to Commons FPC, where your stricter criteria would be more at home. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 04:37
-
-
- Oppose Not "pleasing to the eye", it's really gross. I also completely agree with SeizureDog. --Janke | Talk 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support, no more gross than that conic eye pic we have on FA a few days ago. I like it, impressive. Sadly does not show the scale though. --Golbez 18:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. After reading the caption I know the squid is in ice, at first I thought it was swimming in snot. It's pretty disgusting, and the picture is very blurry. --Mad Max 20:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Per User:SeizureDog. —Black and White (TALKCONTRIBS) 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)- Oppose. For a start, there is no indication of actual size given. It works very well in the article, but not as an FP. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Opppose agree with above. Might be interesting to see a less heavily cropped image. chowells 00:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support. The caption now makes it clear how big it is, and that it is encased in ice. The image is definitely striking/shocking, and will pull in readers. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-08 04:18
- Oppose. No indication of actual object size. Poor quality. Mikeo 06:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per SeizureDog . --Dschwen 06:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support It's too bad there's no sense of size, but either way it's the best photo of a giant squid Wikipedia is probably going to get for a while. The photo is encyclopedic. --Life is like a box of chocolates 19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Don't understand this comment - can't someone just go back there (the Melbourne Aquarium is minutes by foot from Flinders St Station) and take a "better" shot with some foreground elements to show the scale? Sure, giant squids are hard to photograph, but this one isn't going anywhere. Stevage 08:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- It would be easier to simply add a scale in Photoshop, like other featured pictures, such as this. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 14:20
- Agree about adding a scale. Most 'foreground elements' would mess up the picture. What do you want, some smiling relative of fir in front of it? -Ravedave 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- It would be easier to simply add a scale in Photoshop, like other featured pictures, such as this. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 14:20
- Don't understand this comment - can't someone just go back there (the Melbourne Aquarium is minutes by foot from Flinders St Station) and take a "better" shot with some foreground elements to show the scale? Sure, giant squids are hard to photograph, but this one isn't going anywhere. Stevage 08:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - just because taking a good photo of a giant squid is very difficult to do, doesn't mean that this one should be a FP. We're gonna have to be patient until a better one comes along. Agree with SeizureDog and Pharaoh Hound. --P199 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Striking and interesting picture. It's a prime example of what pixels can look like when placed near each other. +Hexagon1 (t)
12:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC) - Oppose Mainly because this picture gives no idea of size (and a very little because I dont like squid, its nice to have FPs that actually look attractive even if that isnt a specific requirement.) -Aled D 13:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I think that a great deal of the people who visit the main page would be sort of creeped out if they were faced with a picture of a (frozen) dead animal, no matter how rare (or giant). Unless you can prove that it is alive (that's even more scary), then I oppose, it would be too weird/wierd/weered/(don't insult my spelling) to have as a featured picture. If i went to a site that everyone had been talking about, and found THAT(!) then i'd probably not come back. Just to clarify, I OPPOSE (but not too strongly, i'd hate to be a POV pusher). Maybe if you go to the aquarium and stick a ruler next to it, you'd get more support. MichaelBillington 00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)\
- Oppose It's an interesting picture, but it's not clear. Anyway, the ideal illustration of such a squid would be a beautiful picture with it in its natural environment, and this picture is neither. Jens Nielsen 09:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted -- moondigger 00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
