Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Masaai with cattle.jpg

Masaai with cattle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2010 at 16:15:45 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and EV. Masaai were previously not allowed to graze their cattle inside the crater but are now allowed to do so.
Articles in which this image appears: Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Grazing, Maasai people
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn’t illustrate “Masaai herdsman” very well. It doesn’t illustrate “his cattle” very well. Both are too far away. It doesn’t illustrate “Ngorongoro crater” very well (too close). It does illustrate “drab bushes in the Ngorongoro crater”. Thus, it is lacking in its ability to illustrate its subject matter. The panorama-like width isn’t necessary here. Finally, I don’t think the combination of drab bush, panorama-like aspect ratio, and small subjects makes this image “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” Greg L (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I added a 900-pixel version, which is the size of a panorama picture currently on Ngorongoro Conservation Area. If someone wants to delete the top-most “100000x260px” version, be my guest; it sorta messes with scroll bars on the FPC main page. Greg L (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One can not dissect an image and then complain that each of its components are not well represented just as one can not complain when a detached hand does not fold. This picture is a composite of the individual aspects and IMO it represents all of it together, quite well. It illustrates the vegetation, the typical size of a herd, the distance kept between the herdsman and his cattle and how he stands. --Muhammad(talk) 17:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quoting you: One can not dissect an image and then complain that each of its components are not well represented. Sure. Why not? Pictures are comprised of different elements and attributes and we can discuss each one separately. This image purportedly illustrates “herdsman”. Too small. It purportedly illustrates “cattle”. Again, too small. Is this important? Certainly, if we are to rationally determine whether the image has sufficient EV for the intended subject matter.
    Discussing these details is necessary to avoid that bitch-slapping comment about pictures looking “snapshotty.” The point of “dissecting” as you call it, is to help provide better feedback to the photographer since one of the FPC voting requirements is that “All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.” As the term “snapshotty” hardly satisfies that necessary element of helpful feedback, I would add that “snapshotty” often means the composition looks like it was taken too far away with a fixed-focus, wide-angle, catch-everything lens and the subject matter appears too small. But if you dislike my addressing the photo in detail, I could just as well have said “The herdsman is too far away from the cattle and it looks sorta ‘snapshotty’, as if it had been taken from a road.” That is the sort of comment that frequently appears here. If you find that sort of comment to be an improvement, then please accept that feedback instead.
    Either way, I don’t think the image if FP-worthy and I gave you the courtesy of extra time to more precisely explain the reasons for why I don’t think it is amongst Wikipedia’s best works. I think if has shortcomings as regards EV and I think it has shortcomings as regards being eye-catching (so readers would want to read the associated article); these are the two criteria—either one of which can be sufficient to merit FP status—upon which we can find an image to be worthy. We will just have to agree to disagree. Let’s see how others feel. Greg L (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dude, is there... ...like a hidden message for me in there? --Dschwen 18:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. Not you specifically. Though you used that term in reference to the Space Shuttle photo, below, it’s not about you; it’s about feedback terms like “snapshot” and “snapshotty”. Jujutacular, at “FPC comments” on my talk page, gave me constructive feedback (jumped my bones) about using the term “Snapshot” in an FPC vote of mine. That sensitized me about how I and others here should try to better explain our reasoning because “snapshotty” is feedback that is about as helpful as “Picture sucks; one that sucks far less would be better.” Greg L (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, the only detrimental thing I can see with my use of this term is that people just go rabid about it and apparently ignore that I stated in detail what I do not like about the image. Well, serves me right. --Dschwen 18:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.: oh, and that is not about you specifically either ;-). --Dschwen 18:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, again you are right. I see no harm when “snapshotty” follows a detailed explanation as you thoughtfully took time to provide. Greg L (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, this looks like a crop from a single frame, rather than a stitched image. There is considerable noise and detail is not very crisp. --Dschwen 17:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could be better and the weather is unfortunate, it looks gray from overcast. Did you travel to take this, and are those evergreens in the background? --I'ḏ♥One 18:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I traveled to take this. As mentioned, this was found inside the Ngorongoro crater and I found it amazing and since there were no pictures of it on wiki, I took a few. I dunno about the evergreens. --Muhammad(talk) 02:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. The overcast underlies the “drab bushes”-part (dissection) of my vote comment. Greg L (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy with it. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course, very good EV, great composition. Something I have not seen, when I was in the crater. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which article are we saying this has EV in? It no longer appears in the first article listed. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does, you may have missed it --Muhammad(talk) 13:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies, you're right. J Milburn (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. After some thought, I'm happy to support this. The EV's not massive, but it's a decent illustration, the composition and quality are great and it adds nicely to the article. 15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- That was me, for what it's worth. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, after looking again, the quality's not there. Oppose. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Greg L here. EV is not immense. Additionally, the image quality is not great. It is quite noisy! The noise is particularly visible on the purple robe of the herdsmen and on the black cattle. (ISO value of 1600 in the metadata is definitely too high). --JovianEye (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Noisy and somewhat soft. Not enough crater, herdsman, or cattle illustrated to make much EV. Maedin\^talk 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but there is too much noise and the colors are to dull. Sorry Hive001 contact 18:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]