Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Komodo dragons video.wmv.OGG

Komodo dragon

Original - Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) from the Komodo island charging the cameramen.

Reason: Hi-res video, the dragon is clearly visible, and illustrates its aggressive behavior towards humans, thus I think it has high EV.
Articles this image appears in: Komodo dragon, Komodo (island)
Creator: Mila Zinkova

Support as nominator --Diego_pmc ^Talk 09:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors are flat. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous (failed) nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Komodo Dragon Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and Speedy close Not because the video is not good enough to be FP, it is, but because I as a creator of the video do not believe in the purpose of FP. To me it is more like photo contest, which cares much more about the quality of the images than their encyclopedic value. That's why I am not interested in my images or my videos getting FP status. Let's better wait until somebody uploads a similar not "flat" colors video of the beast.Just for info the video was watched more than 1000 times on Youtube and got five stars rating Thank you, Diego, for nominating the video, and sorry for my comment, but it is the way I feel--Mbz1 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FP is not really a contest in my opinion. More like selecting the best works so that people would find a quality image/video about the subject they are looking for faster. :) Diego_pmc ^Talk 17:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot agree more. It should be working like this: to give Wikipedia readers a chance to find something they are looking for (or something new they never knew existed) faster.IMO if "the image is encyclopedically valuable to Wikipedia and has been suitably illustrating an article for at least one month" and is among Wikipedia's most educational work " it should be good enough to be a good FPC. Otherwise I am afraid FP would be mostly represented by beautiful, high qualitiy panoramas and amazing insects and flowers macros.For example, if my sunset mirage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunset Mirage nomination were to pass, user Fletcher could have learned something new about atmospheric refraction and did not support no encyclopedic value image Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sunset 2007-1.jpg for the reason it was an atmospheric refraction while in reality it has nothing to do with it.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. I propose replacing all FPC regulars with YouTube commenters. What could go wrong? Fletcher (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I provided Ytube link mostly to give wikipedia readers, who cannot run OGG format, a chance to see the video, and besides it is not only youtube. My other image, which you opposed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Halemaumau Crater was published in two magazines so far - in Germany and in India on the cover in both cases. As a matter of fact three quarters of my images that were opposed both here and on Commons were published in different countries, in different languages in text books, encyclopedias, scientific magazines, astronomy magazines, books for kids, newspapers and were shown on TV. If they are good enough to get published and to educate, IMO they should have been good enough to get FP status.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- FPs on Wikipedia require high technical quality, with occasional exceptions for very rare/historical images. If you don't like that policy you can take it up on the talk page, but I doubt you will get the criteria changed. UPDATE: You might want to keep the Valued Image project in mind, though it has not yet begun.

- It does not matter if images have been published elsewhere. Wikipedia has its own criteria. Likewise, you would not demand a magazine publish your picture because it has been featured here; you would respect that the magazine has its own criteria, and the people there can make up their own minds about what images they want to promote.

- Regarding the sunset, I linked to Hyperphysics which says exactly what I claimed about atmospheric refraction, and has a diagram as well. Maybe you can explain how the sunset image was different or why Hyperphysics is wrong (I'm sure they would appreciate the correction).

- I opposed your pic of the crater because I thought the closer-up shots were more enc. I didn't think it is sharp and detailed enough of the crater. I was not the only one to oppose. But that was just my opinion and I hope you don't take it personally.

- You seem pretty defensive here, but you really don't need to prove anything. That you are a good photographer is self-evident from your work. :-) Fletcher (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure in what format to respond all the points you've made, but I'll try to respond at least some. IMO VP project should not have even been introduced here at all, if FPC had encyclopedic value of the image in the first place and quality in the last, if at all. Wikipedia is encyclopedia and IMO the value of the image should have been the most important criteria of images selection for FP status.

I do not take personally your opposing of my images.

Of course it does not matter, if images have been published elsewhere. I am sure that more than half of National Geographic Magazine images would have been rejected by FP reviewers. Does it mean there's something wrong with the National Geographic Magazine images ? No, IMO it is rather something wrong with FPC process here on Wikipedia.

Here's the quoute from the article I just finished Mirage of astronomical objects:
"Due to a normal atmospheric refraction, sunrise occurs shortly before the sun crosses above the horizon. Light from the sun is bent, or refracted, as it enters earth's atmosphere. This effect causes the apparent sunrise to be earlier than the actual sunrise. Similarly, apparent sunset occurs slightly later than actual sunset. However, it should be noted that due to changes in air pressure, relative humidity, and other quantities, the exact effects of atmospheric refraction on sunrise and sunset time cannot be predicted. Also note that this possible error increases with higher (closer to the poles) latitudes".In other words some atmospheric refraction is always present for all the sunsets and it does not make a sunset neither special nor different from any other sunset. Because of this "normal" atmospheric refraction we talk only about apparent sunset time. Bur sometimes, much more rarely, that atmospheric refraction is effected by other factors, and then we get sunset mirages .The image you supported was an absolutly usual, absolutely nothing special sunset.Please feel free to ask more questions about this matter.

Dear Fletcher, I do not consider myself to be a good photographer. I am not, but the thing is that some of the images I uploaded to Wikipedia fogbows, green flashes, sunset mirages are one-of-a-kind. Let's, for example ,take this image Image:Nilas Sea Ice1.jpg. It is a very, very rare shot. It is hard to find something like this on the NET, yet it got opposed on Commons because of a "bad composition". Wikipedia readers could have learned something new simply by acident, if they saw image like this on FP page, but why to learn something new? Isn't better to see very well done and almost the same two night panoramas of Hong Kong on FP pages? IMO opposing one-of-a-kind- images of something new and different that hardly could be found, by somebody, who's never heard about that except, if they see it on FP, is almost as preventing the knoledge from reaching more Wikipedia readers.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, I wouldn't go comparing commons FPC with enwiki FPC. I find the variability in what passes and what doesn't, and some of the unsubstantiated claims there amazing! Noodle snacks (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there are some similarities between Commons and enwiki FPC, but in general I agree with you, Noodle snacks.

Nomination declined MER-C 03:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MER-C, and thank you, Diego. I feel better because you provided me an opportunity to say what I wanted to say for a long time already.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]