Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Giant Haasts eagle attacking New Zealand moa

Image:Giant Haasts eagle attacking New Zealand moa.jpg[edit]

Reason: A beautiful and very encyclopedic illustration of extinct animals
Proposed caption: Giant Haast's eagle attacking New Zealand moa (The caption can also include some explanations about the Island gigantism)
Articles this image appears in: Island gigantism, Haast's eagle, Moa, Late Quaternary prehistoric birds
Creator: John Megahan

Support as nominator Tomer T 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support - I think PLoS is an untapped resource for images, and we should all keep an eye out there for high quality ones. Debivort 15:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support--Mbz1 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
- Mbz1 - could you please give your reasoning, both here and in the two or three other nominations below where your only comment is "support"? Considering this isn't a true vote (although it often feels like one) that would be very helpful. Thanks. Zakolantern 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, generally a reason is only considered necessary on an oppose vote. The nominator gives the reasons in favor of the image, and a plain support vote indicates agreement. Debivort 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I should reason only oppose. You see, it is hard for me to write in English, which I've learned just few years ago. One user(fir0002) has already made comments about my spelling, that's why I rarely oppose and more often support just to write less.--Mbz1 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Support - I looked at their website and was impressed. Artistic quality is great, as expected from a professional journal, and all its current uses are legit, something I was unsure of and went though and checked. So high enc value, especially for an artistic interpretation. I would like the piece on giagantism added to the caption. Zakolantern 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Zakolantern and comment: I suggest that the caption clearly indicate that this is an artist's interpretation (even though it's pretty obvious). I also note that the artist's signature and the date '2004' are in the lower left corner-- I assume that this is not contrary to our standards. Spikebrennan 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it shouldn't be an issue; after all, the copyright status is what matters. An extreme example, for clarity: if a Monet painting is signed by the author, it's still a great thing to have on Wikipedia, and it's still copyright expired public domain. Zakolantern 20:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference being that Monet's paintings are historic - in fact partially due only to the fact that they have his signature - and that altering them would be altering history. On the other hand, this drawing draws no added value from the signature. I'm not advocating keeping or removing the signature, but the license does allow for modifications, given attribution, so if anyone feels the urge, he can remove the signature. J Are you green? 01:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. —Pengo 01:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. I think we might as well keep the signature. The only problem with them (assuming they were added by the original artist!) is that they may assert copyright (taken care of).--HereToHelp 12:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would strongly oppose removing the signature - I think it's part of the original piece, and something the artist probably put in their knowing the copyright "limits" of the journal it was going into. While the license allows us to remove it, it doesn't mean we should. Zakolantern 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine by me.--Here T oHelp 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The contrast is on low side. Everything seems slightly washed out. Isaac 21:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. For two main reasons. If this was a photo, everyone would be screaming about the washed out colours, and blown out sky (and the signature for that matter). I’m not exactly sure why this has different standards, but I’d be almost willing to let that slip. The more important reason though is scientific accuracy. Although there were a number of different species of moas, the most well known are for obvious reasons the biggest ones, the giant moas. According to the articles, these grew up to 3.6m, while Haast's Eagles had a wingspan of from 2.6 to 3m. OK, now look at the picture. The wingspan on the eagle is clearly bigger than these moas; at a rough estimate, even if the wingspan is at the upper end of 3m, I’d say the moas here are well under 2m. What’s more, since the moas are nearer to where the picture is taken, due to perspective they should appear bigger still. Not sure what I mean – check out Image:Haastseagleattacksamoa.jpg to get a better idea of what it should look like. So, the only interpretations here are that either the picture is wrong, or that it’s misleading because it’s either showing some relatively small species of moa, or juveniles of the ‘popular’ giant species. Since neither of these possible misleading options is identified in the caption or picture description (it simply says it’s a moa), I’m guessing it’s wrong. Either way I oppose, because, whether wrong or simply misleading, it contradicts what everyone else has said about it having high encyclopaedic value. It also disturbs me that this misleading picture is spread so prominently as the lead picture in so many articles. It is a nice picture though. --jjron 04:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. It's definitly an depiction of the Megalapteryx didinus better known as the Upland Moa. As far as i know, it's accurate (proof here) and not misleading since it does not appear on the Giant Moa article. PYMontpetit 12:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I accept that this is a good, encyclopedic, image, but the quality of the painting doesn't exactly blow me away. Frankly, it has a kind of flat, paint-by-numbers kind of quality to it that I find underwhelming. Matt Deres 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was planning to nominate this myself when I got around to it. Guess someone beat me to it. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. This is why science is not democratic. Oh well, more misleading information in Wikipedia that the media can use to beat up on it again. --jjron 09:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to PYMontpetit's comment above that implies the image is accurate. Debivort 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only just seen this down here. OK, my original summary of my issue: "...the only interpretations here are that either the picture is wrong, or that it’s misleading because it’s either showing some relatively small species of moa, or juveniles of the ‘popular’ giant species...". PYMontpetit's comment was: "It's definitly an depiction of the Megalapteryx didinus better known as the Upland Moa. As far as i know, it's accurate...and not misleading since it does not appear on the Giant Moa article".

I think "definitly an depiction [sic]" is a bit of long call, but it is possible that this is what it is (for mine the leg structure and feather coverage on the legs is different in the current nom from PYMontpetit's linked image).

I did make the point that it could be a small species of moa, or juveniles of the giant moas, but as I said that would make it misleading. It would be like showing a thylacine attacking a kangaroo to show how big the extinct thylacines were, but using a smaller macropod like a wallaby instead of what people normally think of as a kangaroo in order to artificially exaggerate the size of the thylacine. It may not be wrong if you can sort out what the actual species are, but it's certainly misleading when you don't give the details of these species.

If you just say "moa", people will automatically think of the giant moa of this sort of size, as they are far and away the most well known, but some moas such as the Euryapteryx were only about the size of a large turkey.

As this image never states a species anywhere (not even on the original site), I maintain my original objection. Even if it was finally definitely identified as a small species of moa, I still feel it's being used in a misleading way to enhance the apparent size of the Haast's Eagle. --jjron 19:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was voting based on art, not science --ZeWrestler ^Talk 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose per Jjron. Accuracy must be confirmed before anything further goes on. On the picture itself, I'm leaning towards neutral per Matt Deres. It's interesting, but not really anything very special. thegreen J Are you green? 19:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I voted support above, if this isn't scientifically accurate, it simply cannot be featured. Perhaps we should suspend the nom until someone can very, perhaps the artist?--Here T oHelp 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done. MER-C 09:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um... Those of you worried about technical accuracy would do well to consider PYMontpetit's comment which gives pretty compelling evidence that it is accurate. Debivort 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no clue about Giant Haasts eagles or moas, but I think that since the objection has been brought up, we should at least confirm that PYMontpetit's comment from a second source. thegreen J Are you green? 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Refer to my most recent statement just above. --jjron 19:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since the listing is still open. I'm not stressed about the size of the moas having read the article PYMontpetit linked, but the painting itself is not exactly jaw-dropping per Matt Deres ~ Veledan • T 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective is confused to my eye, and the image is overall quite flat. Ceoil 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Consensus , since no one has taken an initiative to prove it's scientifically accurate. --NauticaShad e s 22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]