Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arenaria interpres -Florida, USA-8.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Arenaria interpres -Florida, USA-8.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2010 at 23:34:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Caroline Gagné - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)- Support -- LadyofHats (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the background. In thumb you have to look two times at the image to see the hole bird. Sorry, it's good but imo it isn't featured --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is a shorebird and it is photographed on a sandy beach. I guess that the bird's colouring has an element of camouflage. I do not expect camouflaged animals to stand out against the background when they are photographed in the wild in a natural setting. The image size is 3,872 × 2,592, which is at least six times the area of a minimum sized FP. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, just IMO boring composition. Good capture anyways. —kallerna™ 18:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose QI definitely, but not really the "wow" needed for FP, especially relative to other avian photos. FWIW, I think the background/composition is just fine. The bird is in sharp enough focus to deal with a broken or shadowy background. Steven Walling 21:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment To clarify, I mean it has no special quality in terms of composition or how it illuminates the subject. I do not mean I simply find the subject boring (far from it). Put another way, it's not an exceptional educational photo, merely a technically adequate one, which is why I mentioned QI. Still, even if I did just think it was boring, the social sciences have clearly demonstrated that beautiful and engaging work helps people learn faster and more thoroughly than dry work. With that in mind, boring is a useful unit of measurement for educational photography. Steven Walling 04:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is a biological science image, and it is not especially a social sciences image. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC
- Uh...I meant that social science literature demonstrated the point, not that the point is only applicable to social science content. Steven Walling 01:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- A philosophical approach: a quotation by William Blake: "To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour". Snowmanradio (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Uh...I meant that social science literature demonstrated the point, not that the point is only applicable to social science content. Steven Walling 01:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is a biological science image, and it is not especially a social sciences image. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC
- Support - Quite nicely done. "Wow" is a poor unit of measurement. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Someone should start a discussion on the word "wow" and hopefully have it banned from us on these pages. It is a shorthand word which leaves a lot to be desired. --Herby talk thyme 08:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps scientific images should be measured by photographic criteria and scientific value, and not by "wow" or "boring". Snowmanradio (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Anyone that is not interested in a subject would probably have a tendency not find images of that subject interesting. I am beginning to think that a plane-brown bird or animal would never get a FP. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Neutral I absolutely agree with Snowmanradio and–Juliancolton | Talk comments about words "wow" and "boring", and with thought about plane-brown animals and getting FP (excerpt the bison above 
) This is a great shot, with a good light. But maybe a little unsharp IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)- Oppose It is definitely not bad, but the trampled sand is imo too distracting for it to be of featured quality. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
