Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Earthworm Feces
Earthworm Feces edit
- Reason
- This is the first image I'm nominating as an FP taken with my new camera, over which I spent all my life savings:-). This picture IMO is encyclopedic and adds value to the article. Good quality too.
- Articles this image appears in
- Earthworm, Feces
- Creator
- Muhammad
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 11:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not a crap photo... well, not in terms of quality at least, but nothing special. Capital photographer (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Which of the criteria does it not meet? After all, even the poor poop deserves a chance to be featured. Muhammad(talk) 14:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well in general, it lacks wow factor. Whether or not it's a pile of.... well, it's not an exciting image. I wouldn't consider among Wikipedia's finest images. So in terms of FP Crtieria, I guess 1 and 3. The image looks as though it has being over lit by flash and saturation therefore looks quite low. The surrounding dirt is distracting and the focus is no tightly enough controlled. Finally, it only appars very small in the article, and given the subject is small in the frame, isn't very noticeable so I'm not sure how much value it adds to the article.Capital photographer (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- The surrounding dirt IMO does not distract from the image. There is a distinct separation between the dirt and the feces, and the dirt shows the location and orientation of the feces. The presence of the dirt is therefore important. In the original image, the feces cover more than half of the frame and are of a different color, such that even at thumbnail size, one can differentiate between the feces and the sand. Finally, we can not have a whole article about earthworm feces, can we? Its playing its part where it is ow, demonstrating the nature of the feces. Image also added to Feces. Muhammad(talk) 18:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Distinction is only apparent in original, not alternative and the colours are still very similar. The subject is a good idea, but lighting and comp in this case does no emphasise the... subject... enough. Capital photographer (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The surrounding dirt IMO does not distract from the image. There is a distinct separation between the dirt and the feces, and the dirt shows the location and orientation of the feces. The presence of the dirt is therefore important. In the original image, the feces cover more than half of the frame and are of a different color, such that even at thumbnail size, one can differentiate between the feces and the sand. Finally, we can not have a whole article about earthworm feces, can we? Its playing its part where it is ow, demonstrating the nature of the feces. Image also added to Feces. Muhammad(talk) 18:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well in general, it lacks wow factor. Whether or not it's a pile of.... well, it's not an exciting image. I wouldn't consider among Wikipedia's finest images. So in terms of FP Crtieria, I guess 1 and 3. The image looks as though it has being over lit by flash and saturation therefore looks quite low. The surrounding dirt is distracting and the focus is no tightly enough controlled. Finally, it only appars very small in the article, and given the subject is small in the frame, isn't very noticeable so I'm not sure how much value it adds to the article.Capital photographer (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Which of the criteria does it not meet? After all, even the poor poop deserves a chance to be featured. Muhammad(talk) 14:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose focus is out --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for composition and focus. Conceptually I like the idea of worm shit, but try some better lighting, reflect the natural light back, or take early or late, decide what should be in focus, probably everything, but you could macro it with just the shit emphasized. --Blechnic (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted . --John254 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)