Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Coragyps-atratus-002.jpg
|
A highly detailed head shot (again with stunning technical quality) nice use of negative space and great bokeh. Taken by Mdf
Appears in American Black Vulture, Bluebird Gap Farm, New World vulture
- Nominate and Support --Fir0002 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support original per nom. Love the composition. Neutral alternate. Lacks the beautiful background of the original, and the composition is a bit too tight around the head. -- Coneslayer (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great, Quality picture. The color of the backround is perfect. I support. -raj1020 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional Support per raj. I would like to see a caption. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support original, weak support alt Nice composition and colors. And, as I'm sure Fir0002 will readily tell you, the caption is not an integral part of the nom and is more up to howcheng when he puts up the main page/POTD. IMPO, it's not a big enough problem to justify withholding support from the picture, as it doesn't actually have anything to do with the picture. --Malachirality (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly right - here is my stance on the subject... --Fir0002 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- weak support - lacks full body view, but makes up for it partially with detail.de Bivort 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose (original) Sorry, but the composition is fine for art, but not for information. Without reading the title, I wouldn't be able to even guess what kind of bird this is. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? If you spotted me that it's a North American bird (because I don't know the birds of the rest of the world), I'd say it's a slam dunk. The bare head is diagnostic of vultures. That the head is black instead of red nails it as Black Vulture instead of Turkey Vulture or California Condor. The photo gives you the best possible field mark for this bird, IMHO. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would support the alternate; here we get the full bird with fairly good detail on the head. Not as much detail as the first and not quite as artistic, but with the full body shot we can see what this bird actually looks like. I don't care what its nose hairs look like if I can't see what its body looks like. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? If you spotted me that it's a North American bird (because I don't know the birds of the rest of the world), I'd say it's a slam dunk. The bare head is diagnostic of vultures. That the head is black instead of red nails it as Black Vulture instead of Turkey Vulture or California Condor. The photo gives you the best possible field mark for this bird, IMHO. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, I gotta oppose this one. The extremely bright (I suspect blown) areas on the head, and most particularly the beak, do it in for me. The tip section of the beak, being the central part of this shot and so important with vultures, should be a feature of the photo, not a flawed distraction. I may overlook this in a full body shot, but not when it's just the head. --jjron (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I may just be able to overlook the bright areas on the head, but... Partial shot. Need whole bird. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to better understand this position that only full-body shots are encyclopedic. There are currently 5 images in the American Black Vulture article. Is it really your position that 5 full-body shots would be more encyclopedic than one or two full-body shots and a couple more showing details? For human subjects, would you insist on the full body, instead of a portrait? Would you say that a "detail" of architecture, like a close up of a Notre Dame gargoyle is necessarily unencyclopedic? For the two vultures in the USA (Turkey Vulture and American Black Vulture) a comparison of the heads is very instructive. Many field guides include head illustrations where relevant. I just don't understand this outright rejection of headshots. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- User:Samsara/Full body shots please, work in progress. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I would say this, in regards to birds: As a general rule, the head is an important part of the bird to examine for identification. In the field, you never know how much time you have to ID a bird, so it's good to work methodically and quickly. I would generally start with the overall size and shape of the bird, with the hope of determining its type (sparrow, warbler, raptor, etc.). My next stop—the first part of the bird I would look at—would be the head. It very often has important field marks like eye stripes, eye color, beak color, and other diagnostic markings. I guess my point, then, is that in my opinion, good photographs of birds' heads quite frequently do provide useful information, in the context of bird identification. In this specific case, I would say that the bare head is a notable feature of vultures in general, because it helps keep them clean as they feed on carcasses. The black coloration of the vulture's head is diagnostic of the species, at least in North America. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- If that is your rationale, it should be reflected in the caption, and the articles that the photograph is included in. That's to say, if you believe it should be an FP because it is illustrative of the bald head of vultures, or more specifically of this family or genus of vultures, then you should include the image in vulture or the appropriate more specific article. You should then link to that article in the caption (which automatically forces the caption to be written in such a way as to emphasise the feature, to wit, (bald) head). Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the American Black Vulture article, this photograph appears in the "Description" section, where the appearance of the head is discussed at length. In context, the connection between the description and the image is obvious, and duplicating the information in the caption would be redundant. In terms of the POTD caption, I would agree that we should explain these features—but as noted at the top of this voting page, the POTD caption doesn't have to be fleshed out at this point. I have added the image to New World vulture#Diet, where the relationship between the bald head and the carrion diet is noted. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the context of FPC, "caption" refers to the caption that appears on the main page, like so. It seems no caption has been suggested for this image yet. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I referred to as the "POTD caption". I was directing you to Malachirality's vote, and Fir0002's response, above, regarding that issue. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- This discussion is digressing from the original issue, which is continued here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I referred to as the "POTD caption". I was directing you to Malachirality's vote, and Fir0002's response, above, regarding that issue. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the context of FPC, "caption" refers to the caption that appears on the main page, like so. It seems no caption has been suggested for this image yet. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the American Black Vulture article, this photograph appears in the "Description" section, where the appearance of the head is discussed at length. In context, the connection between the description and the image is obvious, and duplicating the information in the caption would be redundant. In terms of the POTD caption, I would agree that we should explain these features—but as noted at the top of this voting page, the POTD caption doesn't have to be fleshed out at this point. I have added the image to New World vulture#Diet, where the relationship between the bald head and the carrion diet is noted. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- If that is your rationale, it should be reflected in the caption, and the articles that the photograph is included in. That's to say, if you believe it should be an FP because it is illustrative of the bald head of vultures, or more specifically of this family or genus of vultures, then you should include the image in vulture or the appropriate more specific article. You should then link to that article in the caption (which automatically forces the caption to be written in such a way as to emphasise the feature, to wit, (bald) head). Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I would say this, in regards to birds: As a general rule, the head is an important part of the bird to examine for identification. In the field, you never know how much time you have to ID a bird, so it's good to work methodically and quickly. I would generally start with the overall size and shape of the bird, with the hope of determining its type (sparrow, warbler, raptor, etc.). My next stop—the first part of the bird I would look at—would be the head. It very often has important field marks like eye stripes, eye color, beak color, and other diagnostic markings. I guess my point, then, is that in my opinion, good photographs of birds' heads quite frequently do provide useful information, in the context of bird identification. In this specific case, I would say that the bare head is a notable feature of vultures in general, because it helps keep them clean as they feed on carcasses. The black coloration of the vulture's head is diagnostic of the species, at least in North America. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- User:Samsara/Full body shots please, work in progress. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to better understand this position that only full-body shots are encyclopedic. There are currently 5 images in the American Black Vulture article. Is it really your position that 5 full-body shots would be more encyclopedic than one or two full-body shots and a couple more showing details? For human subjects, would you insist on the full body, instead of a portrait? Would you say that a "detail" of architecture, like a close up of a Notre Dame gargoyle is necessarily unencyclopedic? For the two vultures in the USA (Turkey Vulture and American Black Vulture) a comparison of the heads is very instructive. Many field guides include head illustrations where relevant. I just don't understand this outright rejection of headshots. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support alternative — why wasn't that nominated in the first place?--Svetovid (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong
supposesupport: For both. Just excellent. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Suppose? de Bivort 08:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose it's a vote - Support + Oppose = Suppose? --jjron (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- *lol* ;) I'm sorry, corrected it. :) Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support either with a slight preference to the alternate (whole body) shot. I would not oppose both pictures being passed. While the body shot obviously shows more of the bird and is more encyclopedic in that sense, I think the level of detail and composition in the head shot is significantly better. Very nice work. Matt Deres (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support alternate (still oppose original). BTW, is a wider crop possible for the alternate? Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support original, neutral on alternate I love the composition of the head-shot, and the blurred red background really makes it pop. I do think its encyclopedic to have an image of a vulture's head in addition to having images of the whole bird. While the whole bird image is technically good and encyclopedic, the background and composition and simply personally uninspiring to me. It's not bad, so I'm not opposing, but I'm staying neutral on that one. Enuja (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support original, weak support alternative I was actually planning on nomiating the original myself, but it looks like someone beat me to it:) The orginal shows almost insane details in the vulture's head and I really like the background in the image. It also seems to "pop" out of the picture, a quality which the alternative, though great for an encyclopedia article, is lacking. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Coragyps-atratus-001.jpg MER-C 02:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
