Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Orange Roughy
- Reason
- High quality photo of an increasingly rare fish
- Articles this image appears in
- Orange Roughy, science museum, Melbourne Museum
- Creator
- Pengo
- Support as nominator --—Pengo 10:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: While a seemingly encyclopedic image that shows good detail of the fish, I don't think the composition is as good as it might be. Ideally, since the fish is not extinct, a live image is preferable, although I admit that could be much harder to acquire. Aside from that, I don't think it's framed well, with unrelated specimens visible in glass beakers off to the sides. We want to focus the eye on the subject fish as a fish, not as a specimen sitting on a museum shelf. Fletcher (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Once it's extinct I'll renominate. Shouldn't be too long. —Pengo 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Fletcher. Even if the other stuff was cropped out, I still don't think this has the technical quality to be an FP. SpencerT♦C 23:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Even though I oppose, I suppose the picture could be added to Melbourne Museum, the location of the pohoto. SpencerT♦C 11:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not framed well, should show only the fish, not the sides of the tank and nearby objects. Capital photographer (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a cropped version. —Pengo 06:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly support original, especially for inclusion in science museum - so much "wow"! Strongly oppose alt - no "wow". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support original - better context. Reminds me of a label on a jar in our museum: "If you drink the alcohol, please at least leave the specimen"... ;-) --Janke | Talk 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support original - per Papa Lima Whiskey. Lycaon (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose both It's a preserved specimen, which isn't ideal for orange roughy, and it doesn't have enough context for science museum. Thegreenj 20:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly support original, especially for inclusion in science museum - so much "wow"! Strongly oppose alt - no "wow". I have to plagiarize Papa Lima Whiskey on this one, this is so typical of science museums, the smaller ones all around the world, and the larger ones. It's a catchy thumbnail. The edited version is worthless. --Blechnic (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but I have to agree with Fletcher. Muhammad(talk) 06:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose both. Needs a considerable cleanup. Dust spot above its nose and all sorts of white specks (presumeably on the glass) appearing all over the fish. I disagree with the above comments - the crop is definetely an improvement composition wise as the original shows too little to be useful as an illustration of a science museum and too much to be useful as an illustration of the fish (ie sit on the fence and you fail both sides). I also think the darkening in the edit was a mistake - made the lighting even worse. --Fir0002 07:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Original - edit removes context which is the important thing here - making it useless. There is literally no better illustration of this type of science museum and the composition is just lovely. It shows plenty - If you've been to any European science museum, you'd know that this kind of thing is absolutely typical for biological displays. All it's missing is the floor and cieling and honestly those parts of the museum are neither exciting or necessary for illustration of what one might see typically. The colors are a bit ethereal and creepy, which suits the subject of it being a preserved specimen perfectly. The contrast of the bluish glass and orangish fish is really nice. It's encyclopedia, it's pretty, it's interesting (hello fish guts!) and it works. (And if you are going to complain about cleanup, the least you can do it take a stab at it.) pschemp | talk 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: "Literally no better": what about a composition that did not cut off specimens and beakers? A composition that was not tilted (unless done so for effect)? A composition that showed a wider perspective of the museum, rather than just a few items? An exposure with softer lighting? By contrast, the van de graff generator in science museum is pretty awesome, despite low technical quality. This image is a decent representation of the animal, but I just don't see how it's a good illustration of a science museum. And I agree with Fir0002 that the image can't be straddling the fence: if it's good at one, it can't be good at the other. Fletcher (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is good at one. And the van de graff image is a snapshot. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- wow factor despite "low technical quality," as I said. Fletcher (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- There's no wow. It's a snapshot. No wow. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Although I disagree with your conclusion, Fletcher, you have offered some points to the photographer to consider for redoing this image. There was no need to comment out another's post, Papa Lima Whiskey. Now that's a wow! --Blechnic (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, we can do this ad infinitum. I have to say though, you're working hard on building a reputation for being disruptive as far as I can see. I'm sure people will say having said so works against me, but I can't help being honest. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- .... so sayeth the editor who commented out another editor's words in a discussion. --Blechnic (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, btw, not only is "commenting out" not an entirely fair description of what the {{hidden}} template does, you're also missing the fact that I included my own comments in the action. That's exactly why I'm calling your behaviour disruptive. Because you're misrepresenting the facts. But let's move on to your own behaviour in discussions, where you failed to back up your claims regarding micrographs of leaf surface structure, instead taking recourse to weasely language, and failed to revise your opinion of a chameleon picture that you previously claimed was encyclopaedic for its habitat, but turned out to not *be* in its natural habitat where the picture was taken (Hawaii; chamaeleons are native to Madagascar and Africa). Now, I gave exact reasons why this whole discussion needs to be commented out (it refers to another picture on the article rather than the current nominee), now more so than ever. What are your reasons for opposing this action? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want the discussion commented out (or hidden, if you prefer) because it's hilarious. I'm a big fan of unintentional self parody. After forking the thread once to argue with me about an unrelated photo, then forking your fork to pick a fight with Blechnic, bringing up unrelated disagreements you've had with her in the past, you insist that she's being disruptive. No, it's too funny. I can see why you'd want it hidden, but a better solution, from your standpoint, is not to parody yourself in such a way. Fletcher (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- For the time being, I've said everything I wanted to say. :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want the discussion commented out (or hidden, if you prefer) because it's hilarious. I'm a big fan of unintentional self parody. After forking the thread once to argue with me about an unrelated photo, then forking your fork to pick a fight with Blechnic, bringing up unrelated disagreements you've had with her in the past, you insist that she's being disruptive. No, it's too funny. I can see why you'd want it hidden, but a better solution, from your standpoint, is not to parody yourself in such a way. Fletcher (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, btw, not only is "commenting out" not an entirely fair description of what the {{hidden}} template does, you're also missing the fact that I included my own comments in the action. That's exactly why I'm calling your behaviour disruptive. Because you're misrepresenting the facts. But let's move on to your own behaviour in discussions, where you failed to back up your claims regarding micrographs of leaf surface structure, instead taking recourse to weasely language, and failed to revise your opinion of a chameleon picture that you previously claimed was encyclopaedic for its habitat, but turned out to not *be* in its natural habitat where the picture was taken (Hawaii; chamaeleons are native to Madagascar and Africa). Now, I gave exact reasons why this whole discussion needs to be commented out (it refers to another picture on the article rather than the current nominee), now more so than ever. What are your reasons for opposing this action? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- .... so sayeth the editor who commented out another editor's words in a discussion. --Blechnic (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, we can do this ad infinitum. I have to say though, you're working hard on building a reputation for being disruptive as far as I can see. I'm sure people will say having said so works against me, but I can't help being honest. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Although I disagree with your conclusion, Fletcher, you have offered some points to the photographer to consider for redoing this image. There was no need to comment out another's post, Papa Lima Whiskey. Now that's a wow! --Blechnic (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- There's no wow. It's a snapshot. No wow. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- wow factor despite "low technical quality," as I said. Fletcher (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is good at one. And the van de graff image is a snapshot. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: "Literally no better": what about a composition that did not cut off specimens and beakers? A composition that was not tilted (unless done so for effect)? A composition that showed a wider perspective of the museum, rather than just a few items? An exposure with softer lighting? By contrast, the van de graff generator in science museum is pretty awesome, despite low technical quality. This image is a decent representation of the animal, but I just don't see how it's a good illustration of a science museum. And I agree with Fir0002 that the image can't be straddling the fence: if it's good at one, it can't be good at the other. Fletcher (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support (and oppose edit). PLW puts it well. I'd be willing to support a slight crop (and/or tilt?) that removes the slanted table edge from the bottom, but I don't think it's a big deal to leave it in. The angle used is appropriate for the main subject in terms of showing its context in the container. --ragesoss (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fletcher and thegreenJ Clegs (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fir0002.Becky Sayles (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from the photographer: I left the surroundings there to give it some context and a hint of size, but did not mean to illustrate a science museum specifically, but I'm not objectionable to the idea. I did not remove the dust because I'm showing what's there, and not some ideal specimen -- besides which, you can hardly notice it unless you view at 100%. The tilt is accidental, but correcting it just made the image seem off. I would not personally nominate a fresher specimen as I'd hate to encourage the consumption of this fish which already has an unsustainable harvest. —Pengo 11:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- hahaha Support the original just because the picture is so striking with the glass case; even though it doesn't enhance the orange roughy article, it definately enhances science museum (what do you see every time you visit a life science museum? dead stuff in jars!) the edit takes away a lot, in my opinion Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)