Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hippo pod edit.jpg

Hippo pod edit

A pod of hippopotamuses in Luangwa River, Zambia.

A new version with improved color and contrast.

This high quality photograph was taken by Paul Maritz in 2002, and uploaded under the GFDL. It illustrates a pod of hippopotamuses and appears in the Hippopotamus and Cetartiodactyla articles. While it does not depict the entire body of the hippopotamus, it does show most of their heads in detail from multiple angles. Another featured picture, Image:Hippo skull dark.jpg, may show the jaw structure better. This image also shows how the animals group together, and how they swim in the murky river (using their noses for air).

Nominate and support. ~MDD4696 03:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support my touch-up. ~MDD 46 96 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Your nom is correct but I do not think this is FP quality. It does not have the arresting quality that an image of one of Africa's Big Five Game should have. Also, it's too dark and there is no obvious focal point. Sorry. Witty lama 03:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the hippo is not one of the big five. ~MDD4696 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How silly of me! Der! I nevertheless still think it isn't an "arresting" image even if the Hippo isn't in the Big 5! Witt y lama 12:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Glaurung 06:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support a lightened version - Adrian Pingstone 07:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've uploaded a version with improved color and contrast; the white reflection on the hippos' noses makes it difficult to lighten it much. While editing I did notice that the image has some JPEG artifacting, but it's hardly noticeable without zooming in, so personally I don't think it's an issue. ~MDD 46 96 16:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. The resolution isn't great, however this image has enough other merits to make up for that. --Pharaoh Hound 11:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 2. --Pharaoh Hound 12:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support MDD4696's edit. The photo is rather plain, but it seems to be the only shot of a pod of hippos around. Solid encyclopedic value. -- bcasterline • talk 23:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It's an okay photo. --Life is like a box of chocolates 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support My edit. As mentioned above, it's not a particularly overwhelmingly great photo, but it is good for it's encyclopaedic value. Uploaded an edit with lightening, sharpening, removal of leaf and reduction of file size by a third (compared to other edit) --Fir0002 www 01:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment File size isn't really a concern, is it? ~MDD4696 04:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I feel strongly that it is. You have to have consideration for the less fortunate - ie dialup users! --Fir0002 www 12:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I feel pretty strongly that it shouldn't be. Internet speeds are getting faster all the time, so why should we sacrifice quality when these images will probably be around for a very long time? ~MDD4696 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - If detail were being lost, I would agree. But Fir usually manages to cut down the image size without sacrificing quality. -- bcasterline • talk 01:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Strongly support Fir0002 here. Wikipedia should be an accessible resource for everyone, not just for wealthy westerners living in big cities with access to cheap high-speed broadband. There is NO reason for the image to go from 400kB (original) to 1,300kB (first edit). And as bcasterline has said, Fir0002 and others can get pictures at good quality and a reasonable size. --jjron 09:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The reason my edit tripled in size is because I saved it with no compression; the original was saved with moderate compression. Not that it's any justification if there's no difference in quality. And getting a bit off-topic here, but I was under the impression that South Korea had much faster internet access at lower cost than many "western" countries. It's definately not cheap in the U.S.! How does having a large original make Wikipedia less accessible...? You can still view thumbnails just fine. ~MDD 46 96 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah you can view thumbnails fine, but, come on! You seriously saying that an example of wikipedia's best work should only be visible to someone on a slow connection at thumbnail size?! And before you give the mediawiki resizing argument, that still isn't good enough. The picture still takes proportionaly long to load as it's file size since mediawiki uses the original compression of the jpeg. If you don't belive me get on a dialup internet connection and try look at an uncompressed PNG. Also all we get from media wiki is a larger thumbnail. Why shouldn't the fullsize be avialble to all? --Fir0002 www 22:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Because that results in mediocre images. Besides, people will be getting (as time goes by) better and better connectivity, but the pictures will no automatically get bigger. We should preserve (for posterity) the highest possible rez. If you want to make a low-rez version of every FP, feel free. There's no reason to cripple the FP itself. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 14:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'People' may be getting better connectivity, but not ALL people, and not for a long time. And people certainly do not have this now. Wikipedia should be a resource for all, not just the well off living in the 'right' places. This is my original argument, and I am yet to hear an even vaguely reasonable response. Re South Korea's internet access, I believe you (MDD4696) are correct, and I'm sure other 'non-western' countries also have great access, e.g., Japan, Singapore and others - so what? Identifying other people that are in the same position as rich westerners is no reply, and surely they are less likely to be using English language Wikipedia anyway? And if you think broadband's not cheap in the US, then you should try getting it in other countries. Besides that simply reinforces my argument. If you can't get cheap broadband even in the US, then if you make all images unnecessarily large that cuts out a lot of the population from access to the best resources, the people that probably need access to a great free educational resource the most. Perhaps someone out there wants to answer, 'No, Wikipedia should only be for the wealthy'. I would hope not. And as I said above, if Fir0002 can produce an edit at a third the file size but with the same resolution and an undectable difference in quality as the other edit, then it can clearly be done, so why don't others do it. This is not resulting in 'mediocre images' and is not 'crippling' the FP. --jjron 10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no reduction in resolution or picture quality, obviously a smaller file size is preferable. I think it's debatable how much you can truly reduce the file size with "no" loss in quality though. Aside from that, what is wrong with my proposal about creating lower resolution versions of large FPCs as needed? Are you saying we should downsample the San Francisco image up at the top of the page because people on 2400 baud modems in the 3rd world can't download it quickly enough? Why not just create a 1/8 scale image and link to it from the desciption page? That way we don't have to sacrifice the highest quality source and people can still download it even with "poor" connectivity. Again, I'm unconvinced that the "typical" Featured Picture can be drastically reduced in file size without affecting resolution and/or quality. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, JPEG is a lossy file format; you'll always get 'some' loss. I'm talking about stuff that a normal user can actually detect. I don't think we are really in that much disagreement. My problem is with people that can't be bothered to consider file size. As I argued here (please read) and above, we need a balance between size and quality. There's nothing wrong with making lower res versions, but Wikimedia already does that type of thing, and as Fir0002 has already said, that is not entirely satisfactory. What's wrong the person uploading the image, who is presumably an expert, at least taking file size into consideration? Do you really think it's reasonable for an edit to more than triple in size from the original? (And BTW, yes I supported the San Fran pic, and yes the file size concerned me, and yes I think some careful saving probably could have reduced it without sacrificing quality; that's part of the reason I supported the original version which was almost 2MB less than the first edit). --jjron 07:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we're fundamentally in agreement on the issue. I just think that saying that people "can't be bothered" with file size might be a bit harsh. The explanation given above was a concern for the highest possible quality, not a "willy nilly" disregard for file size. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps harsh, perhaps just to the point. I have seen several users honestly admit in the past that they haven't considered file size when it's mentioned. And MDD4696's first reply to Fir0002's comment on file size (above) was "File size isn't really a concern, is it?". To me that's saying he/she hadn't bothered with it - perhaps I'm misinterpreting what he meant? I know why it tripled in size, I just think the 'experts' need to think about what they're doing, because everyone has to live with the consequences. --jjron 06:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As everyone seems to be saying, this image does not meet criteria 3 "Be wikipedia's best work" even though it does meet criteria 5 "add value to the article". This is exemplified by Fir0002's, Pharaoh Hound's and bcasterline's comments above. Surely a pic should meet all criteria before being Featured?! Witty lama 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally agree, although the criteria describe what a featured picture should be, not what it must be. Since this seems to be the only shot hippo pod around (here and commons), I think that makes it fairly unique -- satisfying criteria 3. -- bcasterline • talk 15:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's my personal preference to err on the side of inclusion. Even though this picture isn't absolutely perfect, it's still pretty neat, and I think most people would be impressed with it. ~MDD 46 96 00:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, Fir's edit. Ten hippos in one shot - that's enough for FP, IMHO. --Janke | Talk 16:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as above (3rd edit much brighter)--Childzy 21:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fir's edit is preferable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (3rd picture) Nice Encylopedic picture. Ted87 01:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially Firs' edit. Nice Butt-Kissing ;) -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the third version by Fir0002. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support second version. Original is too dark, Fir's is too bright. Cool pic. :-) --Fbv65e del ^{(discuss | contribs)} 03:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ~~Another that seems to gain significance only once additional information not present in the image itself is known.~~ (See below) -- moondigger 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if that were true, I don't see how that'd be a problem. Where is it written that FP's must be separable from a textual description? Second of all... it's a photo of a hippo pod... and it looks like a photo of a hippo pod... what "additional information not present in the image itself" is it that you're referencing? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say FPs had to be "separable from a textual description." I'm saying that a featured picture should be impressive visually, and not only after somebody has read about it. It should make the viewer want to read about the topic the picture is attached to - and not because they're wondering what it is that qualified a featured picture as 'featured' in the first place.

That said, as I look at it today I find myself agreeing with Witty lama about it just not being arresting enough to be a FP. It's a bunch of hippos. There are no obvious flaws like poor focus or compression artifacts, but that just means it was correctly photographed and processed. If all we're looking for in a FP is a lack of technical flaws and "encyclopedic value," then almost every picture I've seen attached to any article qualifies. In my mind there should be something that separates a featured picture from other properly-exposed, properly-processed images with encyclopedic value. It might be hard to define, but I know it when I see it. I don't see it in this image. -- moondigger 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think it has that "something special", fine... but you said before that it only gained significance once additional information not present in the image itself is known. I'm still unclear as to what this additional information is with respect to this image. Nothing in the discussion above or the photo's caption or description page seems to indicate anything other than the obvious... this is a photo of a pod of hippos. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My fault for not explaining clearly what I was hinting at. Somebody said something about pictures of hippo pods with this many hippos in them being rare. I took that to mean it was unusual to see this many hippos together. Looking back, I don't think that's what was meant, but that's how I understood it at the time. In any case, I still oppose the nomination for the reasons mentioned in my previous post. -- moondigger 01:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose As per moondigger. If one of the hippos had been gaping, I'd be in favor. Jens Nielsen 10:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta comment: the discussion above about image size is shockingly uninformed. Fir is completely wrong about "mediawiki uses the orignal compression". Go look at the source and you'll see that claim is utter bullshit... in fact that would be terribly difficult to impliment even if we wanted to do so... I'm alarmed that someone we respect is talking out of his ass like that, just right-click the image and view the size of the transmitted thumbs. It is important that our pages are accessable to users on slow links, but what is material for those users are the size of the mediawiki generated thumbnails. In this case Fir's 'smaller edit' actually has a 40% larger thumbnail. This is often caused by non-obvious jpeg artifacts in the orignal making re-compression more difficult. If the user clicks on the image for a larger version fir's edit is still larger: because the image has large enough dimensions, the image page is also displaying a scaled version... and here Fir's 50% larger! It is only when the user has clicked twice to obtain the holy-crap-thats-big orignal image does Fir's version end up being smaller. It's reasonable to expect that when someone has clicked twice that the actually want the highest quality available and won't mind a bit of a download. Generally we advise people to save their JPGs at the highest reasonable quality. This would be 90-95% for things with an libjpeg style control, and either the highest or one step down from make-it-as-big-as-possible setting in most other applications. First priority is to preserve quality in the orignal so that it thumbs well and survives future edits, only after that should we consider size in the interest of not being wasteful. It would appear that the first edit errored a little too much in favor of making the image large, but it appears Fir's version cut the size too far and as a result drastically increased the size of the thumbs. I.e. all of that argument when the smaller image is bigger where it actually counts. --Gmaxwell 05:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This picture is awesome- what an experience to get so close to a bunch of hippos- and I think this is fp material because it shows a pack of hippos- what more do you want? If you were to get a close up they would criticize you and say that they are sick of "boring" close ups of "ordinary" pictures! Aahh... I would like to see someone else try to photograph a bunch of dangerous hippos. I agree with you, Gmaxwell. fpwannabe

user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support version 3 Actually it's not so difficult to photograph a hippo pod in the Luangwa as it has very steep banks. It's more difficult to reach the Luangwa though (three hours without a 4X4 from Chipata) ;-) -- Lycaon 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2nd version. A cheerful company in there. 3rd version is a bit too bright. — Vildricianus 14:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC) – Sorry if I was unclear, that is "Hippo pod v2", the "A new version with improved color and contrast", the second picture. — Vildricianus 09:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose—~~simply not a terribly arresting photo, especially in the smaller format that will appear on the main page.~~—johndburger 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the larger image looks pretty cool, especially the second version, but, again, it loses a lot in the smaller size.—johndburger 15:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hippo pod edit.jpg --Fir0002 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]