Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Archaeopteryx
The Berlin Archaeopteryx edit
- Reason
- It's the Berlin archaeopteryx. To anyone interested in palaeontology, this is an amazing image. It's also highly suited to Darwin year.
- Articles this image appears in
- Archaeopteryx, Solnhofen limestone, Museum für Naturkunde, Camadas de Guimarota, Bird
Metadata
- Creator
- Raimond Spekking, who also has some other brilliant photographs of fossils. I'd suggest that all of them would be worthy FPs.
- Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support Yes, absolutely. Prefer edit 1. DurovaCharge! 01:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support In agreement. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Question The picture is bright on the right and a bit dull on the left. Is this change of lighting naturally like that r is it due to uneven lighting when the photograph was taken? --Muhammad(talk) 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I've only seen this in photos, and usually far worse than this one. I honestly couldn't say.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I think this image needs some croping. The outline is distracting, especially when this image is used in a wiki thumbnail box. I support if it gets cropped... ZooFari 21:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support edit 1, agree with Durova. Excellent image of what is probably one of the most famous fossils ever discovered. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose both I looked at this earlier and thought it looked a bit odd. Did a little surfing and found the original specimen is actually framed and (as I suspected) much more detailed. I can't be certain cos I've never seen it, but the one we have nominated here is probably a facsimile, the original having only quite recently been exhibited publicly, AFAIK. The lighting is probably available light, as another shot here has the same, and appears along with other, much better shots of the original. Check the link, decide for yourself. mikaultalk 12:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- All the pictures of it framed were taken after this one (with the only exception of "Mike the bird guy" whose pictures were taken "behind the scenes", in early 2006). Do you have any further evidence that the original was framed at the time this was taken? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- The museum website suggests the original has only recently been publicly displayed and a facsimile would have been displayed before that. The rash of flickr shots late 2007 suggests this happened around then, after the shot here was taken. Not evidence as such, just using my eyes :) mikaultalk 20:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, that would also be consistent with the slightly plastery appearance of this exhibit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The museum website suggests the original has only recently been publicly displayed and a facsimile would have been displayed before that. The rash of flickr shots late 2007 suggests this happened around then, after the shot here was taken. Not evidence as such, just using my eyes :) mikaultalk 20:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- All the pictures of it framed were taken after this one (with the only exception of "Mike the bird guy" whose pictures were taken "behind the scenes", in early 2006). Do you have any further evidence that the original was framed at the time this was taken? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
No consensus MER-C 05:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)