User:Samsara/Photo rationale

Full body shots, please
Since people keep asking my opinion regarding partial vs. full body shots of animals, I have chosen to outline my general rationale on this page. The rationale applies to regular photographs of animals. That is, the criteria do not apply in the same way to images of special historic significance, and non-photographic illustrations. They also explicitly exclude false-colour images, such as thermographic ones. As a corollary, it only applies to extant (living) species of animal (museum specimens of extant species may be eligible in special cases).

With respect to featured picture nominations, I note that:


 * To illustrate an animal, it is best to show the whole animal. Moreover, it is best to show animals in profile or in a semi-profile view from above (esp. reptiles and amphibians), rather than head-on. One of Wikipedia's principal aims is to be comprehensive.
 * There is nothing wrong per se with including pictures of part of an animal, such as the head, in an article.

I am of the opinion that:


 * Photographs showing only part of an animal are only acceptable as Featured Pictures if they illustrate a notable feature of the animal (i.e. something that is unique to that species/genus/family, or has special relevance to its lifestyle), that is not previously illustrated by another FP; failing the latter, the previous image should be replaced except where other special circumstances exist.
 * If a claim is made that an FPC illustrates a notable feature, a suitable caption must be supplied. That is, the caption must name the feature that is believed to be notable, and explain why it is believed to be notable.
 * The feature for which the notability claim is being made must be the focus of the image. Again, if significant parts of the feature are cropped out, or the size of the feature is small relative to the size of the photograph, the picture is ineligible (hint: nominate the correct crop instead; crop must fulfill size requirements).
 * The image must be included in the article about the feature, taxonomic/ecotype group that the feature applies to, or combination thereof (e.g. "claws of big cats" or some such). If no such article exists, I may require that a stub be written about it.
 * Failing the above provisions, only full body shots eligible for FP status, and would ask that people nominate partial shots at Wikimedia Commons if they wish for their photographic quality to be recognised.
 * Subject to the above criteria, it is acceptable to have more than one FP per article; however, with the current number of FPs, having more than two featured pictures per article should be avoided in order to avoid systemic bias and undue weight, except where very special circumstances exist.

The above is a personal interpretation of Featured picture criteria criterion 5, which at the time of this writing states, that a picture must "[add] value to an article and [help] readers to understand an article. An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value."

For me, the above conditions are mandatory, but not sufficient. That is, I reserve to raise other concerns about encyclopaedic value not covered by the above criteria. I also reserve the possibility of making exceptions for compelling cases.

Age and scale

 * Pictures of biological specimens should unambiguously show individuals, or parts of individuals, of breeding age, except where explicitly noted otherwise. A scale (e.g. measuring tape) must be provided and must be in the same focal plane as the subject of the image. Images with scales in SI units should be preferred.

Depth of field and visible details
For full body shots, the depth of field of images should be sufficient to cover one of each pair of appendages if in frame, including but not limited to, antennae, wings, legs, arms, tentacles, claspers, testicles, hemipenes and/or other paired intromittent organs, as well as antlers, horns, swords, and other weapons or ornaments. Unpaired appendages should also be within the depth of field.

Furthermore, for pictures of all biological specimens, please make the features necessary for identification visible. For example:
 * In flowers, the male and/or female parts should be clearly visible whenever not naturally concealed from view
 * In insects, whenever the sexual parts are within the frame, they should be clearly visible (well-lit and in focus)
 * In moths and preferably in all insects, the antennae should be clearly visible

Where made necessary by the spatial arrangement of features, sets or compound images that combined show all necessary features are acceptable.

This list is not exhaustive, and some of the items listed here equally apply to other taxa.

Composition should bring a reasonable number of appendages and particularly identifying characters into the frame. For instance, for butterflies, this is the preferred angle of specimen to camera, and for moths, this (note the antennae are clearly visible, with good contrast).