Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bite marks from Great White Sharks

Bite marks from Great White Sharks

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2010 at 15:23:31 (UTC)

Original - On September 20, 2010 a carcass of a very rare whale was washed ashore at Ocean Beach, San Francisco, California. The scientists were not able to ID the whale, but the huge bites taken out of the whale that experts said were from great white sharks. A 2007 study from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, used CT scans of a shark's skull and computer models to measure maximum bite force. The study reveals the forces and behaviors its skull is adapted to handle and resolves competing theories about its feeding behavior. In 2008, a team of scientists led by Stephen Wroe conducted an experiment to determine great white shark's jaw power and findings indicated that a specimen more than 6.1 m (20 ft) long could exert a bite force of over 18,000 newtons (4,000 lbf)

alt1

Reason

Good quality, great EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Great white shark

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment How does this description go with the picture, what is the picture of, a whale carcass? — raekyt 16:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I added more info to the caption, but I would like to stress out that this image is about the bites of great white sharks and not about the carcass of the whale.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• support too much detail when viewed as full size - ewww! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. Interesting subject, but the composition is weak IMO: the subject is cut off on both sides. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  Well, I of course have a few images, where the subject is not cut off, but those might be too big to be used in the article. Anyway I added one as alternative.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Rare photo. Some bite marks is good visible --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose topic not proven. Lycaon (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Info The nominated image has been used in Great White Shark since September 22 (almost 2 months) and nobody ever removed it from the article because it is a unique image of rare subject and not only on Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support either Rare subject, good composition due to aperson for the scale of bites.--Broccoli (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the image is not, in my opinion, "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article". The graffiti on the carcass is distracting and unexplained in the caption. There are also minor composition issues, such as the distracting waves in the top edge. However, in the linked article, it was mentioned that this may possibly be the first discovered hybrid between two species that were never known to interbreed; if this is found to be true, then this image would get a giant EV boost that may make me change my mind. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Info I googled for "great white sharks bites" and did not find anything even remotely as good as the nominated image.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I learnt something new and that is enough for me --Muhammad(talk) 09:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The graffiti is a deal breaker for me.--RDBury (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Next time I will wash it before taking picture.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the specimen has high scientific value, and the photo is well executed. But come on, it's a rotting whale carcass! The first thing I noticed was the girl's butt, then I saw unintelligible writing in white spray paint, then I saw waves. Finally my eye was forced to settle on the half-eaten corpse. There is not a girl pretty enough, nor a photographer skilled enough to land a half-eaten whale carcass on the front page. Shroomydan (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  I really wonder, if such reviews should be taken into account.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose humans in something like this are too distracting. Nergaal (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• I took many (most) images with no "humans", but how are you going to see the scale?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  Those oppose reasons are so depressing that I'd better withdraw--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Don't withdraw! I am surprised that users who hardly ever comment on any nomination suddenly pop up to oppose this one. Don't give them the satisfaction Mbz, let us see the images without the humans --Muhammad(talk) 08:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Thank you, Muhammad, but actually it is me, who got satisfaction. lycaon has proved that I have been right about him all along (I was upset he left Commons, but now I see Commons has not lost much.), and three other opposes made me laugh. I really do not care much, if an image gets FP status, or it does not. I nominate images for FP mostly to share them, and so I did.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

      Mbz, it's a little upsetting that you feel the need to make snide comments about the majority of oppose votes. It really undermines the process if you create an atmosphere where people do not want to oppose. The graffiti comment was not a challenge to your ability, it was a note that the subject is not a perfect specimen, similar to when we will oppose based on flowers being dirty. Shroomydan's objection is comparable to the kind of objections Greg made frequently a little while ago about subjects being unsuitable, as well as compositional problems. Nergaal is, again, talking about compositional problems, among other things. These are all perfectly valid oppose rationales; I appreciate that they may sound harsh, but if you don't want your work reviewed this closely, then don't submit it to FPC. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  They are not harsh at all, and practically none of them was about my skills as a photographer. So I did not take personally the latest three opposes at all. As I said those opposes were depressing and rather ignorant. For example "no humans" oppose. How in the world one is going to see the scale of the bites with "no humans", and besides, if I am to upload an image with no "humans" (I have many good ones of those), I am sure Nergaal will oppose it because there's no humans :). Gratify, well it is not very nice to see it, but there's nothing I could have done with it, and oppose an absolutely unique image (as I said I could not find anything similar on the whole net) because of gratify... Oh well... Do you really believe that the reason: "There is not a girl pretty enough, nor a photographer skilled enough to land a half-eaten whale carcass on the front page" is a valid oppose reason for unique, encyclopedic image? Do you really? (rhetorical questions, I know you do). I assure you I am not interested in your advices. Please keep them to yourself. I will decide myself, when, and if I want to nominate an image. Please have a nice day, and please notice the nomination is withdrawn, do not post here again. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment It was not my intention to offend. I could have phrased my opposition more delicately. My point is that the subject is unsuitable for featured picture and there is no possible way to photograph it such that it could be made suitable. The colorful language which you quoted conveys the same message a bit more bluntly. Note that I never said it was a bad photo or that it lacked EV.Shroomydan (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I assure you I was not offended by your review at all. I was rather upset, but not for my image and not for myself, but for Wikipedia. And now please the nomination is withdrawn. If you'd like to say something to me, please post it to my talk page. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominator. 01:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)