Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kosmoloog Arved Sapar..jpg

File:Kosmoloog Arved Sapar..jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2012 at 18:53:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kosmoloog Arved Sapar..jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kosmoloog Arved Sapar..jpg

•  Info created and uploaded by Lauri Kulpsoo - nominated by Ivo Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Frankly, I'm confused about the choice of the setting. Perhaps it's a pretty shot for a photo album or a framed portrait, but I miss a real encyclopedic value. The quality is good nevertheless. - A.Savin 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As far as I understand a machine-translated version of the Estonian Wikipedia article regarding this atrophysicist, the photo is taken in a field close to an observatory, which might be the context, although this is not apparent from the photo. A COM:FPC does not need to have encyclopedic value, but educational/informational value is a broader sense, and I think it has. --Slaunger (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment The photo lacked categories, and I have created Category:Arved Sapar. I do not understand much of the Esstonian article about this person, so other parent categories to that new category may be needed. --Slaunger (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support An eye-catcing and interesting portrait. Interesting birds perpective, the yellow rape-seed field surroundings, the scientist in suit. The light, composition and expression is good. I like it. --Slaunger (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Per Slaunger. It makes me smile. Kleuske (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Hmm. A breath of fresh air. I like it! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- I like its boldness. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral nice picture, but confusing - because from looking at it I thought he is a botanist. Tomer T (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have been thinking about this photo during the day and the setting makes sense to me now. I see the rape-seed field as an analog to the universe. One of the most important things you learn if you are into cosmology is that the universe on a large scale is isotropic and homogeneous. That is, all galaxies and clusters of galaxies are evenly spread on a large cosmological length scale. Just like a flowering rape-seed field seen from a distance. Everything is yellow (isotropic) and nomatter which direction you look at, the field looks the same (homogeneous). Yet, on a smaller scale, there is structure (galaxies and clusters of galaxies). I think of each plant as a cluster of galaxies, and each leaf and flower as a galaxy. Each plant share the same overall structure, yet has individual differences. A rape-seed field is just like the universe. Quite an adequate scene for a cosmologist. --Slaunger (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • • • • wow !--Jebulon (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
            • Or maybe he just fancies yellow! --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Still, to get to this conclusion, you need to know he's a cosmologist. Without knowing it, you'd probably think he's a botanist or something. I decided to  Oppose. Tomer T (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I can see that "rape-seed field is just like the universe" analogy being used in a TV doc or science magazine and would work in the context where that argument is being made explictly in the voiceover or text. It would then be a great visual aid to help folk remember the point being made. A good image. But without that context, the "Comsmologist in rape-seed field" image just becomes an illustation for the dictionary definition of "incongruous". Colin (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Stas1995 (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- per Tomar T. I am confused whether its a portrait, a portrait with the subject in its environment or what exactly? At this point, not able to see anything beyond a framed picture or something. --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose <rant>Not bold. Just daft. An image for folk with no attention span or interest in the subject. Reminds me of the popular science programs on TV where they can't just film some fascinating scientist's head and shoulders and leave us to listen to what he has to say. They have to add vignetting and fake tilt-shift effects and zoom in on a close-up of his hands or fly him at great expense to Patagonia so he can stand silhouetted on some desert mountain...</rant> Colin (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Weak Oppose: Per Colin, or at least in that direction. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • To be more precise: I think the setting makes sense. But I find it difficult to even look at the subject due to the very high saturation of what's not really only a background. --Julian H. (talk/files) 20:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Tomar T. --Алый Король (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)--Алый Король (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Weak support Good photo, though I am a bit confused by the subject and the setting. Michael Barera (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Athanasius Soter (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Tomer T--Claus (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)