Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pied Cormorant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pied Cormorant

Original - A Pied Cormorant in Te Pukatea Bay in Abel Tasman National Park, New Zealand.
Original - A Pied Cormorant in Te Pukatea Bay in Abel Tasman National Park, New Zealand.
Cropped Version
Cropped Version
Reason
It looks like this image was taken at the perfect time. Very clear.
Articles this image appears in
Pied Cormorant
Creator
Chmehl
  • Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support Good photo. But imo, I wouldn't mind it if it were cropped. crassic![talk] 18:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Vote change. After looking more in depth, I think it's fine. crassic![talk] 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Support (Crop) Sorry for all the changes. The crop seems better. Better detail on the thumb. crassic![talk] 19:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm still leaning towards a portrait format cropping. The expanse of sand to the left doesn't really add anything compositionally or encyclopaedically. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - just about, although the crop is a little close for my liking. Guest9999 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Neutral until encyclopaedic value can be established (or otherwise). Guest9999 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support cropped version. Spinach Dip (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Crop.--CPacker (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original - the crop doens't add to image quality, only ruins the composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • A crop never adds to image quality and nobody claimed that it did. ;-) I'm not sure that the composition is particularly good in the original though. The bird is perched a bit high up in the frame (it is usually preferable to have the subject's feet closer to the bottom of the frame than their head is to the top of the frame, no?) and while it is of course subjective that the overall composition is better, encyclopaedically there is nothing to gain from having the subject take up such a small portion of the frame when there is nothing else except sand. Especially important since, even though we are not judging its suitability as a thumbnail, it is better to have the subject more visible in the thumbnail if possible. Just my opinion though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, this is definitely a cultural "Commons" bias, where the aesthetycal component is much more important than here (though not always prevailing). You are righ that a little more space over the head (and a little less under the feet...) would be better. Anyway I think the crop is excessive, the bird needs some air in front of its beak to breathe -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Its a good picture, but I don't see it as a featured picture. I just didn't find much interesting about it. Rj1020 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support both Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support both Good --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support both Crop is too tight, bland composition, while original is a bit wide. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 21:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support both - I agree that the crop is too tight, but I love the expression :P 8thstar 01:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support both, though I admit the crop on the second one is a bit too tight. SpencerT♦C 16:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original. I feel like the original gives a sense of context.The freddinator (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral, while I like the original, it is true as Diliff and Alvesgaspar say that the bird is in the first one perched a bit too high in the picture; however, the alternative is far, far too tightly cropped. There should always be some space in the direction that animals (even items) are looking, in this case to the left, and also more space above the animal than below it. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 10:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's currently not used in any articles... MER-C 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Was removed by a regular contributor to the Pied Cormorant article with the comment "atypically posed photo adds little encyclopedic". --jjron (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed I added it to an article - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Was removed in the mean time. --Dschwen 10:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hooley dooley. So it's now in the gallery of an article where it's of highly questionable value anyway... --jjron (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixeds again. Added it to Cormorant and Least Concern. --Mad Tinman T C 15:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Removed from Least Concern, not outstanding in Cormorant. --Dschwen 10:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't just adding it to articles ignoring the issue raised by the person who removed it from the original article - that as an atypical pose it's not a good representation of the bird and adds little encyclopaedic value. If anything couldn't it be misleading if that is the case? Guest9999 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't see how this is suitable for the Least Concern article, except that it is one of a myriad of creatures about whose conservation status there is little concern. Anyway, a photo doesn't magically become encyclopedic (and therefore feature-worthy) just because someone adds it to an article. Pstuart84 Talk 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed you are correct. The least concern was a stretch and I have removed it. About the removal from the original article - I believe that it referred to the positioning of the photo in the article ? It seemed almost stuffed in there . The profile view allows for a pretty clear view of the bird, it's yellow beak (which was the characteristic that gave it it's former name) and so on. However , in the Pied Cormorant article it didn't add anything significant. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per EV concerns (FWIW). Sure the photo quality is good, but I couldn't understand why such a weird pose of the bird generated such support. I thought maybe everyone else knew something about these birds that I didn't, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If it can't even find a spot in the article about this species, then I think it fails the No 1 criteria re it being encyclopaedically valuable - fine on Commons, but not here. --jjron (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original -- Dmottl (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If regular editors deem it unenc for its article, I can't support here. Pstuart84 Talk 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll probably leave this for a couple days longer to see if it sticks in Cormorant. MER-C 09:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support either one The original image is featured in commons, while the cropped version illustrates better. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, this is going nowhere further. Let's make a decision on it (I'd close it, but I've voted). Summary: positives - good quality, has required majority for promotion; negatives - low encyclopaedic value, unlikely to remain in articles, most 'reasons' for Support votes are flimsy with no consideration of EV. --jjron (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Since you request more input: Oppose per low enc. --Janke | Talk 08:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And to clarify my vote above, I'm opposing it on the basis that its not even enc for Pied Cormorant (according to its editors) so the fact that it sticks in Cormorant doesn't really help as far as I'm concerned. Pstuart84 Talk 14:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if it doesn't stick in Pied Cormorant, it's unenc. Mangostar (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original - Good work. --Dsmurat (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It is a picture of a creature. Whatever it may be doing must be enyclopedic. Can someone include its actions in the article with this picture? Muhammad(talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Uhm, someone already did, and it did not withstand the peer review of the editors of that article. --Dschwen 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to it's strange behaviour this is a poor representation of the species. A few seconds more and it would have been a decent shot. Although even then there would have been too much empty space which could only be solved (as in this photo) by cropping to a level where it is too low res. I think it's a fairly common bird and a better shot could easily be taken (in fact I think I have taken a good shot of a cormorant about a month ago when I went to Healesville which I'll eventually have time to upload). --Fir0002 06:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Not promoted Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Both images have again been removed from all articles by regular editors. Opposes on EV clearly substantiated. --jjron (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with this result. MER-C 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)