Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Przewalski's colt running.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Przewalski's colt running.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 22:36:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Poor framing. What is the subject: the horse or the trees? Reminds me of those family shots with the monument behind. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)- Oppose Per Alvesgaspar, poor composition. --Eusebius (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Info Alvesgaspar and Eusebius, please don't write in the FPC: "poor...". This word is defamatory. Please write detailed what you mean, everybody wants to understand, what is wrong on the image. This image point up the little Przewalski's colt in his large German lebensraum. This German lebensraum is not the initially habitat of the Przewalski's horses. This has been the steppe in Eurasia. In some years the Przewalski colt will be reintegrated in the steppe of Mongolia. The open countyside in the image is the habitat of the Przewalski's horses in the Wisentgehege Springe game park. The image indicate this with many pieces of horse dung on the meadow. The Przewalski's colt is very little in the large image, this emphasizes his smallness. The image shows on the left side the shadow of the colt and on the right side the open way to his mother. I like the frozen moving in this image: the colt seems to dance on one feet during he is running to his mother. Important is the contrast of the sunny colt and the shady wood. There is a way from the sunny meadow into the dark wood. This way into the dark wood may remember Germans to the Fairy tale Hänsel und Gretel. In bygone times such a way into dark woods had been menacing. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alvesgaspar explained what I meant by "poor composition": by looking at the picture, it is not clear why so much background is part of it (and also, the animal is strangely centred). "Poor framing" or "poor composition" is not "defamatory", it is a negative (and somehow subjective) value judgment over one's work. If you don't want your work to be evaluated in a negative way (which I can totally understand), then maybe you shouldn't submit it for reviewing. --Eusebius (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if my evaluation was too harsh by no offense was meant, of course. 'Poor' is very often used here when assessing pictures, instead of 'bad'. I personally prefer that the evaluations of my images are straight and clear because I learn more from them, but people are different. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, we three are working together for the good future of FP. You participate in the discussion Careless reviews. I myself support the FP mostly with images. I think you misapprehended my sentence „Please don't write in the FPC: "poor...". This word is defamatory.” The word “poor” has different meanings in the English language. It is not only used in the meanings „not good“ and „meagre“. It is also used in the meanings „pitiful, pitiable“, „wretched“, „woefully“. Therefore the word „poor“ can be understood as a defamatory word. The adjective of the german translation “arm” is today used to offend or insult somebody with words like “armer Irrer” (= “poor foul”), “armes Schwein”, “arme Sau”. I think it would be better for the good future of FP to find another way to describe the lack of quality in images of FPC. I wrote: “Please write detailed what you mean, everybody wants to understand, what is wrong on the image.” Maybe you can find in the English language a harmless word instead of "poor..." to describe the lack of quality in an image. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh please... When using a word in a sentence, it is not required that all its meanings apply at the same time, let alone that all the meanings of its possible translations in another language hold. I didn't mean that the image needed better funding, if I need to clarify. The second meaning of "poor" in the Oxford English dictionary (just after the money-related sense) is "of a low or inferior standard or quality", which is exactly what is meant here. --Eusebius (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose another high quality shot. But to me the composition seems a bit random. The background really is a bit distracting. I'd prefer a tighter crop, sth like this --AngMoKio (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your stimulus. I made a crop. Please see Alt 1. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose – ack Eusebius. --Steindy (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Info I made a new crop. I hope it is a better framing now. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment -- Please leave the old nomination and make a new subsection with the new -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Alt 1. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
