Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Poster Common Poppy
Poster of a Common Poppy
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2013 at 14:35:35 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very good quality, encyclopaedic value
- Articles in which this image appears
- papaver rhoeas
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others
- Creator
- Alvesgaspar (talk)
- Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very clear and professionally taken photos. And the three photos are put together in a meaningful and aesthetically balanced way. Iselilja (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support What Iselilja said. ]
- Support per Iselilija. I wish the image on the right was fully in focus, though. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Was a little hesitant at first - not because it's not a good image, but because wide images are hard to get to fit in articles, and I was worried it'd get moved or shrunk down to low-EV sizes. However, there's been consensus having such a poster since April 2010, with the only change being the old one getting updated to the similar, albeit better quality and higher value, new one nominated here. Since use in articles is a requirement for FPs, and the width of it will limit how many articles it appears in, I was glad to see that sort of stability. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Breathtaking. — 21 01:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)]
Oppose as a single poster.I think it is better to keep the pictures individually. It will not affect the presentation as in the page but more convenient for reuse. Further it allows to replace any individual picture by choosing an alternative according to the user's taste. I can see other pictures are available from the same contributor himself. It will be easier for us to replace a single picture in the page if we ever get a better one too. Good presentation though. JKadavoor Jee 08:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)- Comment -- Hi Jee, what you say about reusing the individual pictures makes all sense in Commons, which is a media warehouse, not here. In Wikipedia pictures are supposed to illustrate articles and it is the success of such purpose that we evaluate in FPC. Anyway, I will provide the links to the individual images in the picture file. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Partially agree; but I can't see a reason to promote the poster instead of the individual images. They can be easily inserted in the page exactly as how the poster is inserted. I do't want to encourage people to start making composite pictures with or without texts unless there is such a requirement. JKadavoor Jee 09:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, there are two reasons why I prefer the poster version. First (the rational one), because a poster forces the images to be together in the article, which is a protection against the very usual process of replacing pictures, both for the good and less good reasons; second (the sentimental reason) because I still remember (not of your time, I'm afraid) the colored pages in the middle of the old paper encyclopaedias... That was the reason why I started, in Wikipedia and Commons) this type of composite images (here). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the point that a lot of good pictures are replaced by new inferior quality pictures. It is common practice by most photographers (including me) to try to insert/replace with their own pictures to as many pages as possible, neglecting the redundancy or degradation in quality it causes. This is one of the reason I refrained from self nominations. But I don't think composite images will solve this issue. Instead it create the difficulty to replace individual better pictures. I always expect the best pictures of different contributors in a collage as in the FPC gallery. JKadavoor Jee 09:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, there are two reasons why I prefer the poster version. First (the rational one), because a poster forces the images to be together in the article, which is a protection against the very usual process of replacing pictures, both for the good and less good reasons; second (the sentimental reason) because I still remember (not of your time, I'm afraid) the colored pages in the middle of the old paper encyclopaedias... That was the reason why I started, in Wikipedia and Commons) this type of composite images (here). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Partially agree; but I can't see a reason to promote the poster instead of the individual images. They can be easily inserted in the page exactly as how the poster is inserted. I do't want to encourage people to start making composite pictures with or without texts unless there is such a requirement. JKadavoor Jee 09:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- Hi Jee, what you say about reusing the individual pictures makes all sense in Commons, which is a media warehouse, not here. In Wikipedia pictures are supposed to illustrate articles and it is the success of such purpose that we evaluate in FPC. Anyway, I will provide the links to the individual images in the picture file. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Poster papaver 3a.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)