Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Male impala profile.jpg

Horns edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2013 at 06:48:29 (UTC)

Original – A pair of horns on a male impala. Horns such as these are made up of keratin covering a core of live bone.

Edit 1 Spiderweb removed

Reason: A close-up of the animal in this case is necessary to illustrate the horns article. Good qulaity, compostion and resolution. Already featured on commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Horns, Keratin
FP category for this image
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support any as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 06:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately it has it's face in a spider web. — raeky t 15:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Had the image been solely depicting the impala (and not the horns), I'd have considered it a weak argument at best but in this case I don't see how the web affects the image at all. --Muhammad(talk) 16:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't our mediocre work, or passable work, FP is our best work, and the web is less than our best. — raeky t 16:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for calling this mediocre. You have still not explained, why would the web make this picture mediocre? --Muhammad(talk) 19:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Raeky, we've an edit available for this. JKadavoor Jee 04:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edit 1 Added. Spider web removed, support now? --Muhammad(talk) 14:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, EV concerns are too big now. I think there's better images on Commons that have much higher EV for these two articles. Like Watusi cattle or one of the billion other species that have horns or hair or something else for keratin like micrographs, molecular models, etc... — raeky t 15:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hah, so the EV concerns did not exist previously? This is one of the clearest views we have of horns on wikipedia. Your oppose sounds like a fishing expedition now, at least I got a laugh from your biased vote --Muhammad(talk) 15:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the flaws in the image overrode those concerns. EV is still a concern, your bias that this is the best image we have out of thousands is obvious. Plus lets go ahead and oppose for using a license that isn't even allowed on Wikipedia and deleteable under speedy deletion criteria F3 (WP:CSD. It's obvious that your license choice and battleground behavior to justify it is a clear attempt to restrict usage of your images commercially which is against the spirit and core values of this project, and calls into question why you're WP:HERE. That better rationale? — raeky t 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If there are such serious flaws I ask you to show them. The only flaw that you could nitpick was the spider web which was removed. If there are better images on wiki, let's see them. Re the license, if that's the case, we have at least 130 FPs with that license from me and a larger number than that from Fir and that's just the two of us. Let's be realistic and vote based on the criteria and not our own made up set of rules. FWIW, I prefer your truthful oppose based on non-existent criteria than the original made up one. And before I forget, kindly strike off one of those opposes, only one per person :) --Muhammad(talk) 17:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Distracting vegetation in the foreground (not necessary to illustrate horns), distracting spider web (cloned out but obvious it was cloned out if you look thus not ideal, rather strong handed approach in color saturation changes. I did provide an animal I think better illustrates horns than this one, the Watusi cattle, and I think there is almost no EV for keratin. Those are the flaws, and some EV concerns. That's without mentioning your licencing choices. This isn't a consensus process, justification doesn't need to be supplied for the !votes here. — raeky t 18:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        All those reasons were not mentioned before which makes me believe they were meant to fit the oppose rather than the other way around. FWIW, we are discussing images, provide an image which better illustrates horns as evidence --Muhammad(talk) 19:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit1 as in Commons. J Kadavoor J e e 14:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit1 as per reasoned as what User:Jkadavoor, said above, as becuase it is of better quality as the picture doesn't have the spider web so it can focus more on the subject of the image.--Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original - The web isn't very visible and doesn't really ruin the image. The fact that it was so easily photoshopped out is proof of that. Why not get rid of the plants in the foreground while you're at it? The animal may be interested in the ensnared insect, which means this picture shows an aspect of its natural behavior (do impalas munch on spider webs?).Kurzon (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit1 I agree the spider web was distracting. It looks much better without it. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original : I think, if the spider web is not there, the picture will go meaningless, because the action of the animal is based on the object :-Mydreamsparrow (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose edit 1. The animal is clearly looking at the spider web, or whatever is caught in it. Without it, he's just staring at nothing. Chick Bowen 14:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the spider web? It is not a wasp in search for spiders! They prefer their nose to sense their food. All I can see is it's careful, passive observation on the photographer (to sense any chance of a danger). J Kadavoor J e e 16:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has flies around its head and it goes near a spider web. Maybe its trying to get rid of them. --Muhammad(talk) 06:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support original, which raises interesting questions, why is the impala looking at the spider web, or is it? Oppose Edit 1 which uses a degree of image manipulation that is beyond what I believe is allowed in a Featured Picture. See Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria rule 8. -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only prohibition in criteria 8 I see is "Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable." As the main subject of the image is clearly not the spider, I see no problem here. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the impala just standing there staring at nothing? Or is it showing curiosity at the trapped insect carefully wrapped in silk and the tending spider? As I suggested in my support vote, there are a whole range of thought provoking questions about animal intelligence and curiosity raised by the original photo which are totally absent in the edited version. Are spider webs edible? Maybe the impala is just interested in a tidbit? All these thoughts pass through my mind as I look at the original versus the edited version. So yes, the edits misrepresent the original. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is not being used to illustrate non-human animal intelligence or impala behaviour, though. You might as well say "Support, lovely picture of the grasslands. It'd probably be even better if there wasn't an impala in the way." J Milburn (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added below the "additional votes" line after end of voting period The way I count it,

Original has support(Muhammad), oppose(raekyt), support(Kurzon), support(Mydreamsparrow), support(Chick Bowen), support(Stigmatella aurantiaca) = 5/1

Edit 1 has support(Muhammad), oppose(raekyt), support(JKadavoor Jee), support(Clarkcj12), support(Rreagan007), oppose(Chick Bowen), oppose(Stigmatella aurantiaca) = 4/3

Even if we adopt a worst case stance and interpret the support votes for Edit 1 by JKadavoor Jee, Clarkcj12, and Rreagan007 as implicitly equal to weak opposes against Original, I get 5/2.5 for the Original, so by my count, Original barely squeeks by in a worst case analysis.

Could a neutral party go over my math? Thanks!

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, in worst case stance, they are equal to a full oppose. This way we get 5/4 for the original. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless explicitly stated, we have never considered such votes (where a user supports a different version) as an oppose. IMO, the original should be closed 5/1 --Muhammad(talk) 03:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. The recount is to clarify how votes made prior to posting of the alternative would have gone if the alternative had been available from the start. But we already know how those votes (by Muhammad and Raeky) have gone. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. The other have ignored the original and Raeky continued to oppose it. Everybody else is accounted for, so I'd say your math is fine :) --Muhammad(talk) 15:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters, I'm neutral, leaning weak oppose on the original (I think the flies are very distracting), and strong oppose Edit 1, since the spider web doesn't even block the view of the impala. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we (JKadavoor, Clarkcj12, and Rreagan007) clearly mentioned how distracting the original is. But I've no problem with any closer decision according to his maths. :) J Kadavoor J e e 13:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the edited one. The spider web in the original is not just distracting, but it's also unsightly. Arctic Kangaroo 09:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer IMO, from the comments of users who posted after the closing date, the original passes thru on a 5/1 ratio with the supports of the edit (preferred by them) not an indication of an oppose --Muhammad(talk) 21:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Male impala profile.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5/1 King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]