Commons:Valued image candidates/Hogna radiata (AF)-top 01.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hogna radiata (AF)-top 01.png

promoted
Image
Nominated by Yug (talk) on 2008-09-12 23:52 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Hogna radiata (Adult Female).
Used in

Global usage

en:Hogna radiata
Review
(criteria)
  •  Info pretty good and smart photograph, very encyclopedic, showing perfectly the subject. Yug (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It fails VI criterion 5 regarding Geocoding. Fix that and you have my support. I do not really get this thing about the perception of an photographs of an animal being considered as more encyclopedic when photographed on a white background. I realize this is a preference among some users on Wikipedias for these types of shots, but for me an animal picture is more valuable when it is in contact with its normal habitat and interacts with that. The scale on the sheets is useful though. I suggest you add more numbers on it (5 and 10 mm). -- Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support crit. 5 not applicable here (studio shot). --Eusebius (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm...well. Yug, is it correct that this individual was found at some location, and placed on this sheet of yours in sunlight, whereafter you took the photo? If that is so, it is not a studio shot in my opinion. The reason why I would like a geocode is that there can be regional variances in how species of living organisms look. I agree the background in non-place-related, but the subject may be (but I do not know). Just to compare with another VI with neutral background like this Image:Abludomelita obtusata.jpg. This is not geocoded either, but there are two good reasons: (1) the specimen was sampled somewhere on the Belgian continental shelf at sea (the exact location is unknown), and (2) it is truly a studio shot. If this image is truly a studio shot, I would like to have that stated more clearly on the image page, and if my assumption about how it was made is right, I think that should be stated as well on the image page along with a location. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The image's page description note « took in the South West of France », I was by this time traveling in a 200x200km area (en:Aquitaine). If I remember well, I picked up this subject in en:Marmande ( Coordinates: 44°30′05″N 0°09′58″E ), so I should past {location dms|44|30|05|N|0|09|58|E|heading:WSW} (isn't it ? what is the WSW ?). The picture being then took in Bayonne, 200km southward. Yug (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the location you specified (it pops up in Marmande). The WSW is a heading (the direction the camera was pointing at towards the subject). The heading is irrelevant in this case, so I have omitted it. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the scale, I think 0 + mm + 25 + the clear graduations are enough, we also have to trust a little readers abilities. Yug (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I had to use some time to get it right. I may not be the brightest individual, but I do not think I am the dumbest either. I cannot see any harm in future version of the sheet to also add 5, 10, and 15 mm on the scale. It will only make it clearer. Anyway that is just a suggestion. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, noticed. I will think a solution for next photographies. Yug (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment one last thing, which I noticed while editing the image page: Please provide the date you took the image in the date field. The date field refers the reader to inspect the date of upload, and I am not convinced that is the date of creation. Unfortunately the EXIF data are not there (why not, did the fr wikigrapists remove it?). Else, I would have added it myself. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I also just noted that the image is associated with a non-existent category, Category:Picture using Macro A4. Do yourself a favor and create that category (are you sure about that capital letter "M" in the category name)? -- Slaunger (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose for now until date and category issues on image page are solved. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Date: 5 september 2008 : added.
    Category : created.
    Author vote forbidden: ok, noticed. I didn't seen that you reverted my vote the 1st time. Sorry.
    Yug (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Support All issues resolved. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]