Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wakatobi flowerpecker

Wakatobi flowerpecker

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2014 at 16:20:09 (UTC)

Reason: This is my first FP nomination, so hopefully I get this right... I am nominating this picture for FP status as I feel it has exceptionally high EV and also is of good technical quality. The picture clearly shows the difference between two closely related bird species (who historically were thought of as subspecies) in a way that text alone can't.
Articles in which this image appears: Wakatobi flowerpecker, Grey-sided flowerpecker
FP category for this image: birds
Creator: Sean Kelly, David Kelly, Natalie Cooper, Bahrun Andi, Kangkuso Analuddin, Nicola Marples

Support as nominator – ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - By all rights this should be a JPG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for use in articles, aye. Having it as PNG is helpful if more editing turned out to be needed. Wikipedia cripples the display of the PNG format because they want to save it for things that should be SVG. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that (if I recall correctly, we discussed it last year in Hong Kong). However, considering we're at FPC, and the image being nominated is a PNG (which displays substandardly), I think in the context my comment should be understood as "For the purposes of FPC, the photograph being used/nominated should be a JPG". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had no idea, so thanks for pointing this out. I'll upload a second copy of the image this evening as JPG - I assume it should be lossless? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - JPEG can't be completely lossless, but as lossless as possible. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        JPEG uploaded & nomination link changed accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support although splitting this into individual images should also be doable (if that is thought to be more desirable). Personally I'm fine with this as it is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - Support is for alt too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't like this kind of multiple pictures. Visually, it is basically the same type of image four times. And if splitting this into individual images I could imagine supporting some of them, then but not all. Hafspajen (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering what the images are doing (comparing the two sexes of two species) we can't exactly cut back on the number of images and still have the same encyclopedic value. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I got that too. Two males and two females. But the background is different, and the pictures are way too different. If I was the one using them, I would at least put the male and the female beside each other not below. Also, I would separate them, 2+2. Not 4 photos in the same picture but 2. And then 2 more. Too many different backgrounds and to many different fingers on top of each other. It is too much. Hafspajen (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If you look at the full size image, you can clearly see that the four photos do not have even sizes and are not exactly aligned, which could easily be fixed. – Editør (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Editør: It looks like the top row is +/- 1510px while the bottom is +/- 1550, so you are correct they are a bit different. The column widths are also very slightly different ~1580px vs. ~1590px. I assume this is what you are referring to as opposed to the image scale. (The species are slightly different sized and of course there is some sexual dimorphism, so I am very hesitant to change the scale unless you have a suggestion as to how to ensure the scale is correct - visually it looks correct to me.) As to alignment, do you suggest aligning the bottom of the birds? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the square images are cropped to the same size and then positioned with even spaces between them. – Editør (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source link is directing me to an image; not to an image source page where I can see license and author info. I see CC BY-2.5 and CC BY-4.0 on the file page in Commons; but plos says all of their works are licensed with CC BY-3.0 J e e 07:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found [1] and it is CC BY-4.0. So the template seems confusing. (source corrected). J e e 07:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the template to allow version to be passed. The file now correctly shows only 4.0. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Alt1 uploaded with images all the same size & better aligned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I also changed the article link to the realigned version, as I believe it is superior to the original, albeit only slightly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt1. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support any. J e e 15:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alt 1 and Original.- It is a good picture, but not entirely up to a Featured picture quality. Hafspajen (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hafspajen: For my own benefit (to better learn FP standards), can you clarify if the objection is solely based on composition (variant backgrounds, preference to separate pics, etc.), or if it is also on technical quality (which is excellent I think, but could be mistaken)? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is still the way it is assembled, that makes the problem - visually, I mean. The visual balance. The sky for example is in the middle of the picture. The dark birds are on the top, it makes it top heavy. If you could at least put the male and female Grey-sided flowerpeckers (Dicaeum celebicum) beside each other, on top row, and Dicaeum kuehni, beside, under, starting with the males. Hafspajen (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alt2 added per request from Hafspajen. What is the procedure for a late edit like this? Should be discussion me extended or something? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well it would be good if you would notify the other participants from the addition of Alt 2 so that they can reconsider their !vote. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ALT2 Hafspajen (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden, Crisco 1492, Editør, Jkadavoor, and Peripitus: - Preference for Alt1 or Alt2? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still prefer ALT1 - Peripitus (Talk) 23:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1I was opposing ALT1 but support ALT 2. Hafspajen (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 Preference for ALT1, but support any which get this to pass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3 I'm fine with either. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 Just in case its not clear, either alt is fine by me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support any. J e e 02:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editør has declined to comment further, so I guess this should be closed one way or another based on the existing comments. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Counting votes for Alt 2 or any. 5. Unless Peripitus opposes ALT 2 and Prefers Alt 1... Because then it is checkmate. Hafspajen (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 would be 6 support, 1 oppose --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it is checkmate. Let the wise promote. Hafspajen (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Peripitus:..open the Gordian buddy..--The herald 15:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone specify what "further input" is needed? Alt1 has 6 support, 1 oppose; Alt2 has 5 support, 0 oppose. One support for both preferred alt1; others who supported both had no preference. It seems to be that either alt has enough support to promote - is that the problem? (I.E. no clear decision on which is preferred, but both have enough support.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure which one should be promoted. It would be nice if @Crisco 1492:, @Adam Cuerden:, @Jkadavoor: and you would decide which one you like the most and only support that. Currently I tend to close this as "No consensus which one should be promoted.". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer Alt 2, ideally. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer ALT2 to make the closing easier. :) J e e 05:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ALT2 is fine - knot cut ? - Peripitus (Talk) 09:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dicaeum celebicum compared to Dicaeum kuehni (vertical).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rough consensus that Alt2 should be promoted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]