Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leopard Tortoise2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leopard Tortoise

[edit]
Original - The Leopard Tortoise Geochelone pardalis, is an attractively marked tortoise. It is a grazing species of tortoise that favours semi-arid, thorny to grassland habitats. Leopard tortoises are the fourth largest species of tortoise.
Reason
This is a good, considerably high resolution picture of a tortoise. It is the best leopard tortoise picture on wikipedia, and might just be the best tortoise picture. It shows the tortoise's facial features and its tongue which can not be seen in other pictures. It also shows very clearly the scales around the tortoise's eyes and on its head. These details can not be shown on a full view of the tortoise, which makes this image even more encyclopedic.
Articles this image appears in
Leopard Tortoise
Creator
Muhammad
  • The point, though, is that there's nothing special about this head over any other reptilian head. The other picture is the best pic I have ever seen of compound eyes. This, on the other hand, is a nice portrait, but not specially encyclopedic of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Image is not bad, but it looks like “over-flashed” (see the eye of the tortoise). The depth of field lacks a bit as well. Altogether not enough, sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - there is a shadow in the image and also the lighting seems a little harsh --Hadseys ChatContribs 17:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On EV basis. I actually really enjoy the image, and I can see that it enhances the detail around the face. But ultimately those details don't seem to be important to the reader's understand of a Leopard Tortoise. The article doesn't mention anything about the face being important to the tortoise's identity. That's not really a problem for the image until you consider that the carapace, which is extensively discussed, is missing entirely from the image. Perhaps in a different context, with a different creature, this image would work for EV, but I think this one fails FPC5. SingCal 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The comments here seem to me to be a bit picky, especially in light of some of what I saw amongst the ostensible best FPs of the year. I'd prefer the whole animal, but I think that this is pretty good. Unschool (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agree with Unschool, this is a superb picture. I can't understand why it is so important to show the whole animal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Crop is a bit tight... But the lighting is really nice on this one and the angle is more informative. Oh, and its no problem taking a look at pictures. Good luck. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose If the caption emphasies the largeness of the animal, the crop is just a bit on the tight side. Very good quality though. Dengero (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose lighting is far too harsh. Mfield (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I find this to be a highly informative picture. It was argued above that a picture of the whole animal would be better; I don't necessarily agree with that. True, it would show something which this picture obviously doesn't, but then you would be sacrificing the facial detail provided with this shot. You can't have it both ways, and I don't think either is necessarily preferable. As for the lighting and other issues mentioned, I'm by no means an expert photographer, and trust that others can pick this stuff out much better than I can, but this is still a very attractive, high-quality image in my amateur opinion. faithless (speak) 08:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the lighting (flash) problem. This could be easily retaken in better quality (i.e. better lighting). Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not very easily retaken. After all the tortoise doesn't walk around with its tongue stuck out.
FPC critria no 3 says

It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.

This is currently the best leopard tortoise picture. Muhammad(talk) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One criterion alone is not sufficient. Tortoises use their tongue whenever they are feeding. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You surely dont mean that. This image clearly meets more than one criterion. Muhammad(talk) 17:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is maybe the best example of a tortise head, but one of the worse examples of a leopard tortise. There is nothing in the picture by which to identify what species of tortise this is. Sorry to come down hard on this, but this is one area I feel strongly about. If this were on the Commons, I would support it for its artistic value. But WP is first and foremost and encyclopedia, and this portrait has nothing particularly encyclopedic about it. Clegs (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad, I see that you've chosen to ignore the fact that this photo could be easily retaken any time that you offer a tortoise food. Mouth opens, tongue comes out. This is a reliable occurrence. Bring your camera, give the scene some nice ambient light, and Bob's your uncle. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Leopard_Tortoise2&oldid=1141918324"