Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Haeckel's Lizards

Haeckel's Lizards[edit]

Reason: Another beautiful painting by Ernst Haeckel in high quality
Articles this image appears in: Lizard, Kunstformen der Natur
Creator: Ernst Haeckel, was uploaded by Ragesoss
Nominator: Tomer T

Support — Tomer T 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bernalj90 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've expanded the caption as follows:

The 79th lithographic plate from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur (1904) depicts a variety of lizards, or Lacertilia. In terms of evolutionary relationships, these eight lizards demonstrate the diversity of the Lacertilia suborder, which has been replaced by an array of new suborders and infraorders in recent classifications. Unusual species of chameleon and gonocephalus are at the top; the second row has a flying dragon and a Texas horned lizard; the third row has a flying gecko and a common basilisk; on the bottom row are the aptly named frill-necked lizard and the Thorny Devil. As in many of Haeckel's prints, the colors and spatial composition are more of an aesthetic choice than a reproduction of nature; the lithographer Adolf Glitsch worked directly from Haeckel's sketches rather than from first-hand specimens.

See also the previous nomination.--ragesoss 09:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support It failed last time mainly because there are already some of Haeckel's work as FP, but maybe now people will have realised thats no reason to fail it. C hris_huh^talk 10:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as per everybody --User:Ahadland1234 11:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, I just don't think it's as good as others. And, the crop is a little off... too much white space on the left. gren グレン 22:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose beautiful plate, but these lizards are overly idealized, and just don't look lizardy enough to me. —Pengo 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per pengo. Debivort 09:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per limited usefulness (too few lizards have articles, questionable accuracy). + see previous failed nomination. --Dschwen 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 5 of 8 have articles. I'm sad that this number hasn't increased since the last nom. —Pengo 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - and comparing the photos in those articles with this tableau I see some strong discrepancies. I wonder what Haeckel based his illustration on. --Dschwen 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - anyway I'm not a reptiolgist :-) but I fear this painting is judged on prettyness, rather than scientific accuracy, which would be most unfortunate, given that this is an encyclopedia here... --Dschwen 11:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think Ernst Haeckel knew a thing or two about biology. Tomer T 13:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        He knew about the biology of the 19th century (proposing theories like Recapitulation theory - not complete crap, but inaccurate by today's knowledge). Heckel never made it further from europe than the canary islands, so I guess it is a legitimate question on what he based his drawing of a Texas horned lizzard. And let me quote from the article: Haeckel was a flamboyant figure. He sometimes took great (and non-scientific) leaps from available evidence.. So I suggest keeping a critical view even on acclaimed persona like Haeckel. --Dschwen 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The images of exotic lizards were probably based on other naturalists' images. I recently discovered one such source on the Frogs plate, where the flying frog is taken almost exactly from Alfred Russel Wallace.--ragesoss 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per dschwen -- 8thstar 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the nom and per Chris Huh. Witty lama 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really can't see why the number of Haeckel pictures already featured should make a difference to this nomination, it's a great picture. The colours may be a bit off compared to real life lizards, but most people will get a fair idea of what they look like in real life (which probably varies considerably anyway), so it's acceptable. I doubt we have anything better at illustrating these particular species pages at the moment (seeing as some haven't been created yet - maybe promoting it will get those articles written once it reaches the main page). Terri G 16:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]