Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Biologists.jpg

File:Biologists.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2015 at 21:57:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Biologists.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Biologists.jpg

1231

3509

105

105

5344

3928

I am a 4th year student of the Faculty of Biology. The courses in zoology we are really in contact with living beings (insects, reptiles, birds) to determine their species. View all determined by morphological features which are described in the books, and help to find a particular type of animal. Therefore, the situation in the photo is real. The photo was made at the studio to achieve the best image quality. The purpose of the photo to show that science is not always gray and dull but bright, beautiful and interesting. Therefore, the photo refers to the style of the popularization of science.

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
•  Info created and uploaded by Victoria Achkasova and Pavel Panchenko - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Is this a joke? I can't support such a nonsense parody of serious science work. Yann (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment "Serious science work"? Why so serous? Why should whatever topic be taken like that? In my opinion that caricaturistic depiction is just brilliant. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Women could be great biologists, but this looks sexist. Yann (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Thous two even happen to be biologists according to the image description. But I don't see how is this sexist. What does the gender got to do with this? Would you say it is sexist when there would be two men doing the same? Kruusamägi (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose No, just no. -- KTC (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose "Science ... It's a girl thing! Science ... It's a girl thing!" Seriously ... this looks like one of those weird stock images BuzzFeed occasionally finds when it looks through stock image catalogs for images related to a particular term. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I think that Commons also needs images that could be use as stock photos. And I think it is too limiting to only stay within "encyclopedic" and with its narrowed down version. Yes, it doesn't depict scientists at work, but that's not the point of that photo. And its far better lifestyle advertisement than this over-the-edge EU commercial. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting approach for showing science but studio setting is not attractive (objects are setting randomly) and the level of image quality is a bit low (e.g. overexposed hair and forehead), so not an FP, imo. --Laitche (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment It is not necessary at all to make such derogative statements. If you treat people like this, this will fall back negative on me personally as a member of the community and all the others as well. And this is not acceptable. Thanks, Laitche for your "normal" comment. Especially administrators should know this! Ping: Daniel Case and, Yann, you should learn what sexism really is, maybe you will learn, what a ironic point of view maybe is. I have a lot of female students in my classes (not biology), believe me, it´s not so strange as it seems. Ivo, thanks for your engagement! --Hubertl 20:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, no more mathematical chance of success.--Jebulon (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Jebulon, I don't see why should mathematical chance of success be relevant here. Do you add that template to other nomination in that reason? I mean, I can easily accept this image not getting the FP status, but I think this discussion here is relevant and should continue. And I don't see how this images doesn't fall under guidelines. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Kruusamägi, that's fine for me. FPX may be contested, so you did. All the tools are working.--Jebulon (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I think photomontage is no problem to be an FP but should be categorized in Non-photographic media/Computer-generated like this one. I'm not sure this photo is photomontage or not though. --Laitche (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well it isn't "Computer-generated". I agree that there isn't good category for images like this, but this is also one reason I nominated that. There should be more conceptual photographs like that in Commons and it seems like a good image to draw attention to that topic. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Ok, I got it. I meant if this photo were a photomontage. --Laitche (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Even if this cannot be an FP, this photo is enough worthy, I think. --Laitche (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment I had support the visual object itself if the light was not so strong for my tastes. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm not sure it's good enough to support, in particular I'm not happy with the overexposed hair and lab coats. However, I think the reactions here are a bit harsh. This picture sure isn't a good representation of a biologist's daily work, but that's not a reason to oppose, IMHO. I think both the idea and execution are pretty good, and the picture is very well usable in a context where a not-so-serious representation of "Biology" is appropriate. --Kabelleger (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• +1 --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Actually it deserves a  Support vote. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)