Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A Triptych

A Triptych edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2014 at 13:53:39 (UTC)

Original – A Triptych of Epilobium hirsutum seed head

Reason: A fine quality Triptych of Epilobium hirsutum seed head.
Articles in which this image appears: Seed dispersal, Triptych, Epilobium hirsutum
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others (for triptych)
Creator: Colin
NOTE: The original nomination also had the three images as separate files but since they aren't used on English Wikipedia, that isn't valid. So I've removed them and kept just the triptych. -- Colin°^Talk 15:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support triptych as nominator – The Herald 13:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sorry, I don't like these at all. To me it all looks like a blurry mess -- like something has gone wrong. 86.179.115.46 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Because it is shooting out the seads, it is like a small explosion. Hafspajen (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I don't think we should force people to see all three at once; they can be inserted into the article using a multiple images template. Regarding the DOF, I'm curious what it looked like with greater DOF. The wow is there, of course (it is a Colin photograph), but I don't know how useful this is in the Epilobium hirsutum article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it is very useful. I don't know about the display, but this is quite an interesting botanical photo. It is only a second it is all about, when the plant is expelling all the seeds. Ping botanist, Sminthopsis84 for second oppinion. Hafspajen (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well, I'm not very familiar with this plant or with the others in the genus. I *think* that the images aren't really catching a rapid explosion, but that the fruit sit around in those positions for a while, with individual seeds blowing away in the wind at intervals, as I think this image suggests. I do like the middle image! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather familiar with it. What makes me think that it is in the middle of the explosion, because the seeds are floating around, wich usually doesn't happen after. Also the seed head **leafs** are curved, while in the other image it is strait, folding outwards... Hafspajen (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I believe you. My thinking would be influenced by being more familiar with Asclepias, which opens along only one line with little potential for explosion. I tried to find a citation to support that the fruit open explosively but failed. It seems that writers are content to say that it is a weed that disperses lots of seed. So in that case, I agree that photos like these would be difficult to get. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^{Well, they do, even if nothing is written... Just now I have a very large flowerbed full of these seeds where an ignorant worker left them to grow and put seeds - it was just impossible to do ANYTHING - they just exploded all over the place, as soon as anybody touched them...} Hafspajen (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support, so long as the image stays stable in the triptych article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Could you check, whether your condition is met or not? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there, so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, Support. They are interesting. Hafspajen (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the triptych in the triptych article. I've just noticed that someone had removed it claiming unsourced which is a little irritating when (a) the rest of the article is unsourced and (b) a quick google search would confirm. I've restored it with a handful of sources. Fine Art America have nearly 2000 triptych photos for sale, and most photo magazines have regular features on creating your own. So I think this seed head triptych is a good example for that article. The EV for the Epilobium hirsutum article is weaker since these are closely cropped to the point of abstraction and clearly the above discussion shows some confusion about what people are seeing. I didn't witness any explosion of seeds, but I'm no botanist so perhaps this does happen sometimes. I think they just catch the wind and gradually disperse. I don't know why mine were curved and the other picture straight. A natural variation or perhaps they curve over time? Ping Crisco 1492 on the artwork-article. -- Colin°^Talk 21:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Deals with my objections, yes (not enough info for POTD, but let me worry about that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - While an image is nominated and it does not have enough for a POTD blurb, does it really significantly add to the article? This is such a subject, that any number of pictures could be merged to illustrate it. --Muhammad(talk) 00:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Muhammad, the point of a triptych is that the images are deliberately composed/taken to make a natural set. This image has the same subject, lighting, size and proportions, but three angles of view. To take three random pictures from Commons and construct a triptych would be original research just the same as if you took three random paintings and constructed a triptych. I took these photos deliberately to make a modern photographic triptych. If you look at Commons:Triptichs you will find no other examples, despite this being a hugely popular form of modern photographic artwork. The issue of whether the article itself does the subject justice (photographic triptychs) isn't really a concern for FP -- we aren't here to write the article text -- so that, and any POTD blurb, isn't a valid reason to oppose. -- Colin°^Talk 08:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - IMO, the images appear as randomly selected. I find the third one without any merit at all; it's mostly out of focus and the parts in focus dont appear to have much value. I'd want something that makes sense to be put together and I'm afraid I dont get that feeling here. Colin, wouldn't you say that File:Focus stacking Tachinid fly.jpg makes a better triptych. I dont mean to offend you so pardon me if I did. --Muhammad(talk) 08:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Muhammad, the fly focus stacking examples are a set of three related images that are of interest to someone learning about focus stacking (and useful stuff for encyclopedias). They don't represent an a triptych, which is an artistic presentation, not just three images in a row as an educational presentation. You wouldn't hang it on your wall. I accept not everyone has the same artistic taste but I thought they were beautiful (all credit to nature). -- Colin°^Talk 17:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Just a note about POTD blurbs: I generally require 500 characters of text in the article for writing such blurbs (otherwise we end up with single-line stubs on the MP). Here, the text is not doing the image justice. Fixing that is not a matter of not promoting the image, but rather expanding the text in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weak EV IMO, barely used in either article. --Muhammad(talk) 00:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think these picture well explained how seed are prepared for wind dispersal and IMHO a better alternative for the current fp which only shows how the seeds travel in air. I see related article like Pappus (flower structure); but all are "too scientific" for me. Sminthopsis84, could you look into it? J e e 03:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well spotted, Jee! As a landscape architect (kinda half art+half botanics) - I can already tell that they make a splendid addition. Added it, and they didn't even had a lead pic. Hafspajen (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I concur with Muhammad, broadly. I think these images have a lot of potential EV, but mostly for the species article. I don't see why all 3 are necessary to illustrate it, though. As it stands their usage is quite marginal. As a triptych I think they would need to be displayed as a single file, not just arranged as a gallery to have more EV; additionally, there needs to be a better explanation of the work they're doing. TownCows (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- TownCows, the triptychis displayed as a single file: File:Epilobium hirsutum - Seed head - Triptych.jpg. For the "triptych" article, this is necessary. I think this nomination has got over-complicated by the inclusion of both the triptych image and its component parts. In fact, I'm confused why the individual images are nominated at all, since they aren't used on English Wikipedia. Would it help to reboot this nomination with triptych as the primary article? -- Colin°^Talk 08:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's definitely better in triptych as one article, but I still think it's underused. I think the real issue is that there's two different valuations here, and the three as a whole don't seem like a great compromise. In the seed dispersal article I think the third image is the only one which really shows the seeds being released clearly, and is probably the only one that has sufficient EV to be featured. As a triptych, I think to some degree it will always amount to a kind of OR (don't misunderstand me, they are beautiful). as you noted above, Colin, it is a common photographic display -- which leads me to think that we could probably find a work of art from a researched artist that does the same thing and more encyclopedically. TownCows (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - TownCows, by "work of art" do you mean photo or painting? There are countless triptych paintings to choose from but that's not the aspect of the article this is illustrating. This one illustrates the kind of contemporary photo art one might see in a shop. You really aren't going to get that kind of modern photo style by a notable artist that has a free licence: if it is for sale, it won't be free! -- Colin°^Talk 17:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is lead pic now at Seed dispersal - just splendid. I am sure Sminthopsis84 agrees. Hafspajen (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice there. Support. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support if stable there. :) J e e 15:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The limited depth of field and close cropping gives it little EV for Seed dispersal or Epilobium hirsutum. I would prefer a single, less 'artistic' photo for those articles. It's use in Triptych seems more suitable, but not especially valuable (there are only 3 sentences about photographic triptychs there). It may have better luck as a Commons featured image (which doesn't require EV). Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Epilobium hirsutum - Seed head - Triptych.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Crisco 1492's condidition is met, and with this there is a 66.6% support, which is enough for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]