Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leopard Tortoise2

Leopard Tortoise edit

Original - The Leopard Tortoise Geochelone pardalis, is an attractively marked tortoise. It is a grazing species of tortoise that favours semi-arid, thorny to grassland habitats. Leopard tortoises are the fourth largest species of tortoise.

Reason: This is a good, considerably high resolution picture of a tortoise. It is the best leopard tortoise picture on wikipedia, and might just be the best tortoise picture. It shows the tortoise's facial features and its tongue which can not be seen in other pictures. It also shows very clearly the scales around the tortoise's eyes and on its head. These details can not be shown on a full view of the tortoise, which makes this image even more encyclopedic.
Articles this image appears in: Leopard Tortoise
Creator: Muhammad

Support as nominator Muhammad(talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for this to have encyclopedic value, it needs to show more than the face of the tortoise. Clegs (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This picture is special in the sense that it shows the facial details wonderfully well, as if you are crouching down looking at the tortoise. Such detail can not be caught on a full view of the tortoise. A full view, I repeat can not show what this picture shows. So, just as a full view is encyclopedic, so is this head shot. Hope you understand. Muhammad(talk) 15:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Consider . Would you say it should not be an FP because it does not show the whole dragonfly? Muhammad(talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that is an image of the EYES. Specifically. We're talking about a whole turtle here. Dengero (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just as the Eyes are encyclopedic, so is just the head of this tortoise. You can not have a full view of the tortoise with the head in such detail. Muhammad(talk) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point, though, is that there's nothing special about this head over any other reptilian head. The other picture is the best pic I have ever seen of compound eyes. This, on the other hand, is a nice portrait, but not specially encyclopedic of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Image is not bad, but it looks like “over-flashed” (see the eye of the tortoise). The depth of field lacks a bit as well. Altogether not enough, sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to the glow in the centre of the eye? Muhammad(talk) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe he is referring to the reflection/shadow on the head of the tortise that gives a strong feeling of directional light from somewhere, even if not from the flash. Clegs (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - there is a shadow in the image and also the lighting seems a little harsh --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 17:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On EV basis. I actually really enjoy the image, and I can see that it enhances the detail around the face. But ultimately those details don't seem to be important to the reader's understand of a Leopard Tortoise. The article doesn't mention anything about the face being important to the tortoise's identity. That's not really a problem for the image until you consider that the carapace, which is extensively discussed, is missing entirely from the image. Perhaps in a different context, with a different creature, this image would work for EV, but I think this one fails FPC5. SingCal 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article lacks quite a bit of information. Some of this is provided by the image. However, this image is still encyclopedic because it still illustrates the tortoise. Muhammad(talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The comments here seem to me to be a bit picky, especially in light of some of what I saw amongst the ostensible best FPs of the year. I'd prefer the whole animal, but I think that this is pretty good. Unschool (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with Unschool, this is a superb picture. I can't understand why it is so important to show the whole animal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Crop is a bit tight... But the lighting is really nice on this one and the angle is more informative. Oh, and its no problem taking a look at pictures. Good luck. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose If the caption emphasies the largeness of the animal, the crop is just a bit on the tight side. Very good quality though. Dengero (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The caption mentions it being the fourth largest species of tortoise. However, this tortoise was just around a foot long. If the caption is slightly altered, would you change your vote? Muhammad(talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It mentions more than that. "is a large and attractively marked tortoise. It is a "large,". And yes, if you change the caption I will change my vote, its a good picture after all. But if we took out the large in a tortoise? hmm... Dengero (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removed the large, but have kept its rank as 4th largest. Muhammad(talk) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The other issue is with "attractively marked", which this picture shows nothing of. Clegs (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting is far too harsh. Mfield (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this to be a highly informative picture. It was argued above that a picture of the whole animal would be better; I don't necessarily agree with that. True, it would show something which this picture obviously doesn't, but then you would be sacrificing the facial detail provided with this shot. You can't have it both ways, and I don't think either is necessarily preferable. As for the lighting and other issues mentioned, I'm by no means an expert photographer, and trust that others can pick this stuff out much better than I can, but this is still a very attractive, high-quality image in my amateur opinion. faithless (^speak) 08:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the lighting (flash) problem. This could be easily retaken in better quality (i.e. better lighting). Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not very easily retaken. After all the tortoise doesn't walk around with its tongue stuck out.

FPC critria no 3 says

It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.

This is currently the best leopard tortoise picture. Muhammad(talk) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One criterion alone is not sufficient. Tortoises use their tongue whenever they are feeding. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You surely dont mean that. This image clearly meets more than one criterion. Muhammad(talk) 17:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is maybe the best example of a tortise head, but one of the worse examples of a leopard tortise. There is nothing in the picture by which to identify what species of tortise this is. Sorry to come down hard on this, but this is one area I feel strongly about. If this were on the Commons, I would support it for its artistic value. But WP is first and foremost and encyclopedia, and this portrait has nothing particularly encyclopedic about it. Clegs (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad, I see that you've chosen to ignore the fact that this photo could be easily retaken any time that you offer a tortoise food. Mouth opens, tongue comes out. This is a reliable occurrence. Bring your camera, give the scene some nice ambient light, and Bob's your uncle. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per the previous version from this series that I supported. There's no issue with it 'only' being a headshot, there's plenty of headshot FPs. --jjron (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason not to. Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]