Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Insects in Baltic Amber
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Insects in Baltic Amber
- Reason
- An interesting picture, which in my opinion adds some value to the articles.
- Proposed caption
- A mosquito and a fly in Baltic amber necklace are between 40 and 60 million years old. Please note the mosquito survived the hole, which was drilled to make the necklace.
- Articles this image appears in
- mosquito;amber;fossil;
Jurasic Park - Creator
- Mbz1
- Support all as nominator Mbz1 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- comment Just for the information: I have not seen insects, when I bought the neclace in Ukraine. I found them 5 years later, when I became intested in fossils.
- Oppose. Not a very high quality image - edges are quite blurred and soft. I've also removed the image from the Jurassic Park article as it has no direct relevence to the book. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure it does: Here's the quote from Jurassic Park article.
"Upon arrival the park is revealed to contain cloned dinosaurs, which have been recreated from damaged dinosaur DNA (found in mosquitos that sucked Saurian blood and were then trapped and preserved in amber) that have been spliced with reptilian, avian, or amphibian DNA to fill in the sequence gaps. Hammond proudly showcases InGen's secret advances in genetic engineering and parades them through the island's vast array of automated systems."
. I'm sure somebody will be interested to see how that amber could have looked.So I put the image right back.--Mbz1 22:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1- Just because the article mentions a mosquito in amber in relation to the plot, that doesn't mean you should put an artibrary image of a mosquito in amber in the article. At the very least, the caption should explain the relevence of that particular image, and said relevence is very tenuous indeed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- So, you believe it could stay in the article, if I change the caption? Thanks.I was also surprised by the reason you provided for removing the image from the article, which stated (exact quote):
"A random image of somebody's amber collection is NOT relevent to the article on Jurassic Park".
The question is, if the image were from a museum amber collection, would it have been relevant then?--Mbz1 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1- Actually I still don't think it would be appropriate for the article, even if it were from a museum collection. The article is about Jurassic Park and really should only contain images directly related to the movie, not images of a similar concept. Would you expect to see a picture of a random monkey in the article on King Kong??? A link to the article on amber is more than enough. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- No,I do not think a picture of a random monkey would be good in the article on King Kong. I do think that a mosquito in amber is a great addition to Jurasic Park article. Remeber that mosquito in amber has started Jurasic Park. They will not be able to recreate the dinos without that mosquito. Who are most probable readers of the article and the book? Kids are. Most of them have never seen an amber leave alone an amber with a mosquito. This picture is very educational and fits right in Jurasic Park article.--Mbz1 14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Yes, it is an educational image but not appropriate for the Jurassic Park article. The only images that should be on that article are images directly related to the book. Anyway, this discussion is for the article talk page if you want to pursue it.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria states:"Its main subject is in focus". I'm afraid Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria does not say anything at all about "edges", which btw could be removed in photo shop. Maybe it will be good to remember that the picture is macro and not a landscape--Mbz1 22:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- No,I do not think a picture of a random monkey would be good in the article on King Kong. I do think that a mosquito in amber is a great addition to Jurasic Park article. Remeber that mosquito in amber has started Jurasic Park. They will not be able to recreate the dinos without that mosquito. Who are most probable readers of the article and the book? Kids are. Most of them have never seen an amber leave alone an amber with a mosquito. This picture is very educational and fits right in Jurasic Park article.--Mbz1 14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Actually I still don't think it would be appropriate for the article, even if it were from a museum collection. The article is about Jurassic Park and really should only contain images directly related to the movie, not images of a similar concept. Would you expect to see a picture of a random monkey in the article on King Kong??? A link to the article on amber is more than enough. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- So, you believe it could stay in the article, if I change the caption? Thanks.I was also surprised by the reason you provided for removing the image from the article, which stated (exact quote):
- Just because the article mentions a mosquito in amber in relation to the plot, that doesn't mean you should put an artibrary image of a mosquito in amber in the article. At the very least, the caption should explain the relevence of that particular image, and said relevence is very tenuous indeed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure it does: Here's the quote from Jurassic Park article.
- Oppose Does not contribute much to the articles. In amber for example, the image above this one in the Amber#Amber_inclusions subsection is a much clearer example of an insect in amber. Although this image does contribute to the Fossil#Resin_fossils subsection, the one I mentioned above would contribute more information. Enuja 21:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC) oppose all Alternate 1 has artifacts (see edge of amber at upper right corner) and a few too many blown-out highlights. Enuja 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I wonder, if I understood you right, that you would have supported the other image, if it was nominated? I do agree with you that the other image has a much bigger and easier to see insect, yet in my opinion the nominated image is more interesting. Only think about this - two insects in the same necklace --Mbz1 22:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
-
-
- The technical quality of the "alternate" in the articles at the time I posted isn't up to FP quality, so, no, I wouldn't have voted for it. I'm sorry, I meant to include that in my original statement. Enuja 00:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose Agree with Diliff - the corners of the image suffer from very poor sharpness - almost as if it's had a radial blur on it. Aside from that the lighting could have been improved to achieve a proper white background. --Fir0002 08:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- comment The edges are gone in Alternate 2. The lighting is improoved. Diliff snd fir0002 please come up with a new reasons to oppose Alternate 2. Thanks. I'd like also to ask fir0002 about one of his fp images(I could provide few more samples, if you like). Here's the image
. Don't you think, if just to be fair, that back leg and one of the front leg of Calliphora augur are blured beyond repair? And it is not the edges, it is your main subject.--Mbz1 13:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- In Fir0002's image's defense, there is a big difference between macro limited DOF (absolutely unavoidable at times, no matter how expensive the lens) and severe edge softness (very avoidable with a decent lens and stopping down a bit). Anyway, the edge softness was not the only issue I had with it - it is also reasonably uninspired compositionally. I suppose the question is about whether the image could easily be improved (and therefore how close to ideal the image is). I'd say it could... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. You did not want to hurt my feeling in your first oppose, when you talked only about the edges, and now , when the edges are gone, you came up with a new reason "reasonably uninspired compositionally".
I do not think we could use the word "deffence", when we're talking about FP quality, because in the end it is result what matters, but it's OK, no worries, you guys. We have so many FP of sharp or not so sharp bugs, that two more, two less(even, if these two more are absolutely different because they are in amber) really does not matter:)Yet I guess I'm interested to learn how to improove the composition. Thanks.--Mbz1 15:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1- No, I just didn't expect to have to justify every single reason why I thought it wasn't high quality to you - one was enough to begin with. I think you also misunderstand my use of the word defence, or perhaps you are delibrately being obtuse. ;-) If you really are interested in improving the composition, I would suggest you have a look at high quality product images in magazines/brochures as they tend to be shot in good studio quality light and pay attention to presentation. Its hard to explain specifically what you should have done differently, but perhaps you could have presented the amber better rather than what looks like a crumpled up pile. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it is how my amber neclace look and it is beautiful!
This was my last comment for the nomination. Thanks, everybody for your time and comments.--Mbz1 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Well, it is how my amber neclace look and it is beautiful!
- No, I just didn't expect to have to justify every single reason why I thought it wasn't high quality to you - one was enough to begin with. I think you also misunderstand my use of the word defence, or perhaps you are delibrately being obtuse. ;-) If you really are interested in improving the composition, I would suggest you have a look at high quality product images in magazines/brochures as they tend to be shot in good studio quality light and pay attention to presentation. Its hard to explain specifically what you should have done differently, but perhaps you could have presented the amber better rather than what looks like a crumpled up pile. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. You did not want to hurt my feeling in your first oppose, when you talked only about the edges, and now , when the edges are gone, you came up with a new reason "reasonably uninspired compositionally".
- In Fir0002's image's defense, there is a big difference between macro limited DOF (absolutely unavoidable at times, no matter how expensive the lens) and severe edge softness (very avoidable with a decent lens and stopping down a bit). Anyway, the edge softness was not the only issue I had with it - it is also reasonably uninspired compositionally. I suppose the question is about whether the image could easily be improved (and therefore how close to ideal the image is). I'd say it could... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Alternate 1 A nice interesting image that has both good quality and good color--Southern Texas 03:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Alternate 1 which seems clearly the best of the 3 to me. its closer up, less cluttered with objects and there are no shadows cast which is a problem with the original and 2nd diagram. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose all Poor quality. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 17:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The white BG shots have strong shadows and blurry edges and the Alt 1 is too backlit for my liking. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
