Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xylocopa pubescens male 3.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Xylocopa pubescens male 3.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2012 at 14:07:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- all by Gidip -- Gidip (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Gidip (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)- Strong support good quality, composition, lighting, sharpness, colors, WB, identified species, focus on right place, almost no CAs, no noise... flawless to my eyes. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special, bad crop. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- PS: "bad" in the meaning of "too much unnecessary material around the motif" or "interesting object too small in comparision to the whole picture". --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Use of terms like "Bad" and "Disturbing" are inappropriate when reviewing someone's work. Surely there other less contentious words that could be used to gently convey the issue with the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.206 (talk • contribs)
- Eh? As long as the adjective used concerns the picture, and isn't gratuitously over-the-top, then I don't see what is wrong with critical terms. If the nominator can't stand criticism of the picture then don't nominate. My issue with Yikrazuul's comment is that it isn't helpful enough in saying what is "bad" about the crop. Colin (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is a Canadian cultural thing. Critisim comes in many guises and not all should be welcome here. I would never tell a child they are being bad, as it is enirely too harsh given the context we use the word (akin to morally reprehensible or defective). These photos are analogous to people's babies. I just don't see the need to be so blunt when so many other descriptive words are available and as you note just saying something is "bad" is not helpful in correcting any issues. It just makes the environment hostile and misses the mark of providing constructive critcism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.206 (talk • contribs)
- Remember that not all contributers have Engish as a first language. Bad is a simple word everyone understands. Since an object itself (the photo) can't misbehave, then the only reasonable meaning is that it is "defective" as you say. Which is a valid criticism, though not very precise. This is not a forum for children so the kind of attitude we have towards reviewing one's child's work or behaviour doesn't apply to adults who have voluntarily put up a picture for public review. As I've said elsewhere, if you just want uncritical praise of your photographs, show them to your mum. There are worse behavioural issues here than reviewers being blunt about an image's defects. These are not people's "babies" and many of the behavioural problems seen here would be improved if folk just took a "win some; lose some" attitude to their nominations, rather than getting all emotional about negativity. Colin (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Of course they aren't babies but to deny people aren't (or shouldn't be) vested emotionally in their works is silly. This is why in a community such as this the emphasis should be placed on contstructive criticism. No one is asking for uncritical praise just some courtesy when reviewing. Asking that people avoid emotive words like "bad" or "disturbing" shouldn't require this level of debate. Bad may be a short word but it is by no means simple when you take a moment to look at the definition and the baggage this carries. Brushing aside concerns in this regard is all just part of a culture where people are expected to have a stiff upper lip and take it on the chin as if nothing better can be achieved. That may be your worldview but it doesn't have to be the reality here. Moreover, negative votes effectively have twice the weighting of a support vote and as such offering an oppose should come with it clear expectations of justification. Saying something is just bad is not helpful (On this aspect we are in violent agreement) and hurtful. If it is not helpful and/or hurtful then it doesn't belong in a community that hopes to attract and retain contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.206 (talk • contribs)
- Would you mind signing your posts, please. This is off-topic for this nomination really. If you think it is important then could you post on the featured candidate list's talk page and get an account. I see no baggage with the use of the word "bad" in the above example. The fact that the nominator isn't complaining, but just some IP who is unable to contribute images or vote, suggests to me that perhaps it is just you being over-sensitive and reading into the words meanings that aren't there. Colin (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rather disappointing end to this debate where ad hominem attacks against the IP showcase what people often find bothersome about wikipedia. Then again I am just an IP. 93.219.117.74 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Would you mind signing your posts, please. This is off-topic for this nomination really. If you think it is important then could you post on the featured candidate list's talk page and get an account. I see no baggage with the use of the word "bad" in the above example. The fact that the nominator isn't complaining, but just some IP who is unable to contribute images or vote, suggests to me that perhaps it is just you being over-sensitive and reading into the words meanings that aren't there. Colin (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Of course they aren't babies but to deny people aren't (or shouldn't be) vested emotionally in their works is silly. This is why in a community such as this the emphasis should be placed on contstructive criticism. No one is asking for uncritical praise just some courtesy when reviewing. Asking that people avoid emotive words like "bad" or "disturbing" shouldn't require this level of debate. Bad may be a short word but it is by no means simple when you take a moment to look at the definition and the baggage this carries. Brushing aside concerns in this regard is all just part of a culture where people are expected to have a stiff upper lip and take it on the chin as if nothing better can be achieved. That may be your worldview but it doesn't have to be the reality here. Moreover, negative votes effectively have twice the weighting of a support vote and as such offering an oppose should come with it clear expectations of justification. Saying something is just bad is not helpful (On this aspect we are in violent agreement) and hurtful. If it is not helpful and/or hurtful then it doesn't belong in a community that hopes to attract and retain contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.206 (talk • contribs)
- Remember that not all contributers have Engish as a first language. Bad is a simple word everyone understands. Since an object itself (the photo) can't misbehave, then the only reasonable meaning is that it is "defective" as you say. Which is a valid criticism, though not very precise. This is not a forum for children so the kind of attitude we have towards reviewing one's child's work or behaviour doesn't apply to adults who have voluntarily put up a picture for public review. As I've said elsewhere, if you just want uncritical praise of your photographs, show them to your mum. There are worse behavioural issues here than reviewers being blunt about an image's defects. These are not people's "babies" and many of the behavioural problems seen here would be improved if folk just took a "win some; lose some" attitude to their nominations, rather than getting all emotional about negativity. Colin (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is a Canadian cultural thing. Critisim comes in many guises and not all should be welcome here. I would never tell a child they are being bad, as it is enirely too harsh given the context we use the word (akin to morally reprehensible or defective). These photos are analogous to people's babies. I just don't see the need to be so blunt when so many other descriptive words are available and as you note just saying something is "bad" is not helpful in correcting any issues. It just makes the environment hostile and misses the mark of providing constructive critcism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.206 (talk • contribs)
- Eh? As long as the adjective used concerns the picture, and isn't gratuitously over-the-top, then I don't see what is wrong with critical terms. If the nominator can't stand criticism of the picture then don't nominate. My issue with Yikrazuul's comment is that it isn't helpful enough in saying what is "bad" about the crop. Colin (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support I was going to suggest a closer crop but then I noticed that having the flower facing the camera in the top of the pic is useful as it (along with the flower at the bottom) help show the shape of the flower sans-bee. Colin (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support I too like the flowers on the top and bottom. People may complaint about low resolution if we crop tight for small subjects; so better leave as it is. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose can't see something. Zivya (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please elaborate.--Jebulon (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- the animal unclear. the focus is problematic - it think it should to bold the animal better. now it disappear. Zivya (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Zivya; a camera, a lens, or a person can be problematic. I don't see how the focus of an image can be problematic. The focus can be on the right place or can be on the wrong place. It should be on the subject, as is the case of this picture. Therefore I don't understand your statement "the focus is problematic". Maybe you meant, the depth of field is too shallow, meaning there are many blurred parts besides the subject? But then, later on, you state: "it should to bold the animal better", which doesn't mean a thing. I know there are language problems, and you probably used google translator or something... and sorry if I'm being too accurate... but it is good that we all use some standard terms. If you want the background of a picture to be blurred and "bold" the subject, then you should use the correct verb, which would be "emphasize" or "highlight" the subject. By the way, before continuing with your critics on FPC, it would be cool and useful for you to read Commons:Image_guidelines. There, you will learn some useful terms and how to correctly evaluate a picture. Regards, --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- as i see, you understand very well what i meant to. you delayed on terms. so to be correct: i think that despite the focus, it is not clear where the subject is located. and i thank you for your polite invite to read the image_guidelines - i think it will be more useful for me to take English course. anyway, i will do my best next time. thank you for you comment. As they say, all beginnings are difficult. Zivya (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Zivya; a camera, a lens, or a person can be problematic. I don't see how the focus of an image can be problematic. The focus can be on the right place or can be on the wrong place. It should be on the subject, as is the case of this picture. Therefore I don't understand your statement "the focus is problematic". Maybe you meant, the depth of field is too shallow, meaning there are many blurred parts besides the subject? But then, later on, you state: "it should to bold the animal better", which doesn't mean a thing. I know there are language problems, and you probably used google translator or something... and sorry if I'm being too accurate... but it is good that we all use some standard terms. If you want the background of a picture to be blurred and "bold" the subject, then you should use the correct verb, which would be "emphasize" or "highlight" the subject. By the way, before continuing with your critics on FPC, it would be cool and useful for you to read Commons:Image_guidelines. There, you will learn some useful terms and how to correctly evaluate a picture. Regards, --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- the animal unclear. the focus is problematic - it think it should to bold the animal better. now it disappear. Zivya (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please elaborate.--Jebulon (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
