Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bush Stone-curlew

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Bush Stone-curlew

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 07:52:26 (UTC)

Original - Bush Stone-curlew (Burhinus grallarius), Centenary Lakes, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Reason
Meets criteria imo
Articles in which this image appears
Bush Stone-curlew
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
If we HAVE to use the pic in this format, than we have to have pics that display well at that size. I personally don't think we should have Infoboxen so much, but they are really spreading and I even hear people talk about them as required. Just taking a practical view on how the pics are used in article. If it's only used in one article, only likely to be used in one article, and only likely has one placement in the article...this becomes an issue of usability, EV, integration with the text, whatever you want to call that. I realize others may not agree (I swim upstream), so please don't feel you have to vote the way I do. But let my vote stand. People have different views on importance of relation to the article and I am more of an "article guy" than a "picture guy". And if the box and stub and pic are all being put in by same person (as seems to happen sometimes), then that really is all on the FP nom's shoulders anyways. (Even if not, I still think it a valid issue.) TCO (reviews needed) 09:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an extreme example might be an FP that would only be usable, printed and put on the wall (a super detailed Gant chart) or a city map with all the streets or something. (there is an example down the page, where I voted against a popular choice for that reason.) Think in that case, Commons FP might make sense...since the image might have real value printed on a plotter...but I would vote against it if used in article.TCO (reviews needed) 09:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a website, not a printed book. You work on the presumption that people don't click on images if they want to see more detail. The fact is that they do. If you were to follow your logic through there would be no point in uploading anything over 300px wide. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Part of it being a website makes images different here. I already gave the example of a detailed poster plotted on blotter paper which would be great in a "war room" on the wall, but unusable on the computer (at all). Also, many people (real, normal readers not Wiki editors do not click on pics. Besides that...it is a pain in the ass to click on pics. I hear the same thing from people who do excess wikilinking or write in needlessly technical language such that you end up having to click and read 100 pages to understand one. Surely if the pic works without clicking on it, that is superior to needing to click on it.TCO (reviews needed) 10:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is sufficiently clear for an ID from the thumbnail. I'd wager that more real, normal readers do click on pics than don't - this isn't 1995, people are internet competent. On the technical language front I disagree. Every field of human knowledge uses specialised language, sometimes it is required. Furthermore, Some things are not even possible to understand without clicking and first understanding those 100 pages you mention. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support increased image size in article. IMO, that should not count towards the review process here though --Muhammad(talk) 15:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Comment technically excellent but artistically I'm less convinced. Do technically great photos of every species have enough EV to justify FP? Pine (GreenPine) t 19:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the basis of the "Common law" established here any subject notable enough for an article is notable enough for a FP. As far as artistic merit is concerned, we should remember that the goal here is ultimately to provide an incentive structure which improves the pictorial quality of Wikipedia. Artistic merit is nice and it does affect the outcome of nominations, but a clear illustration of the subject is more important. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak support I'm willing to be convinced in this case. Technically excellent. Pine (GreenPine) t 08:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Jujutacular talk 03:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Wish the feet were visible. Otherwise, a great photo.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 15:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this is up to 4.5 votes in favor and none opposed. If there are no more votes, please count mine as full support to push this to the required 5. Because there is no opposition so far and only one day of voting remains. I wouldn't want this to fail on a half-vote when there is no opposition. Pine (was GreenPine) talk 18:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought I read that five votes are required, but is it four? Maybe this isn't necessary if only four are required. Pine (was GreenPine) talk 18:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Burhinus grallarius - Daintree Villiage.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Bush_Stone-curlew&oldid=1138494877"