Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caridoid escape reaction

Caridoid escape reaction
Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2013 at 05:59:05 (UTC)
 * Reason:A smooth and accurate animation depicting a specific motion used by crustaceans to escape danger. The encyclopedic value is obvious since this is the only animation on Wikipedia that illustrates the article on the Caridoid escape reaction.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Caridoid escape reaction, Aquatic locomotion, Escape response, Antarctic krill, Shrimp
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Crustaceans or Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
 * Creator:Uwe Kils


 * Support as nominator --dllu (t,c) 05:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I also support the alt. dllu (t,c) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In principle support, but not yet. I definitely think we need more FPs (and just images on the Wiki) that are explanatory, rather than pretty pictures.  So a biomechanics gif is great.  I think a slower presentation might be better.  You are probably dancing around with the issue of gif being used as a proxy for video (and I support you on using gif, Wiki video is not viewable by over 50% of the reading public.)  Maybe if you showed less actual motions, you could go into more detail and slow it down.  Also, perhaps not blue on blue.  Just some thougts and opening a discussion.  Again, what you've created is AWESOME in terms of article explanation.TCO (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:ACCESS. Animated GIFs should be converted to video. A sequence drawings would imo be more useful coupled with a video of an actual animal. The still frames would also work when the article is printed. Colin°Talk 11:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The animation here is so short that having the play/pause functionality of a video does not make much sense (the MOS specifically said that only ones longer than 5 seconds should be converted to video). The file size is so small that the streaming advantage of video is negated. A sequence of still frames does not give nearly as good of an idea of what the motion is like. Notice that we already have many existing featured animated GIFs, including very recently promoted ones, that have far longer durations (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, and many more). dllu (t,c) 23:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problems with animated gifs are well documented and they are no longer used anywhere other than Wikipedia. The rest of the world moved to Flash and is now moving to HTML5/Javascript. Wikipedia is at least two generations behind the world. The behaviour is easily demonstrated by a video of a real crustacean. The fact that we may lack such a video is no reason to feature a gif. Animation tends to provoke a "cool" reaction at FP but in practice, if you want to concentrate on reading the article, or understanding the concepts, GIFs are annoying and inferior to many other methods of illustration. Co56lin°Talk 08:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the arguments about Flash and HTML5 being used elsewhere are applicable here. Yes, they may be used on other parts of the web, but they aren't available here. It's rather unfair to punish a nomination for being in the only format allowed. Furthermore, in this case where there's a short duration and a quite small organism, I don't see there being much of a benefit. Cowtowner (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The current version has been modified from the original upload by Uwe Kils, not necessarily for the better. The prominent "Δt 18 ms" is not explained anywhere, but apparently refers to the actual frame rate at which the images have been traced, so that the illustrated action takes place in 0.45 seconds real time, i.e. the current animation has been slowed down about 4-fold from real time. I strongly doubt that this is something that the typical user could figure out at a glance. I won't oppose, but I simply cannot support such an inadequately explained image. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction. One frame has a duration of 1500 milliseconds, the remaining 24 frames are 50 ms each. So the present animation is slowed approximately 3-fold from real time. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is an alternative animation that I can Support. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt Now that it's slower I think this works much better. I don't think a video is really feasible for this (Underwater, very small, very fast subject make for a very difficult piece of camera work) Cowtowner (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt That'll do. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt Wow, nice! As a lay person, Stigmatella was correct in saying I wouldn't understand "∆t 18ms", but the slower version makes much more sense and is even more impressive. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * support alt-BNK(talk) 02:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt - as objectively, the alt version does make the movements easier to see and understand in time. (Although I do personally prefer the "delta t" aspect of the original). BTW I don't care what the rest of the web world thinks about or does with animated GIFs these days - stuff like this does its job excellently . Plutonium27 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be better if the transition from caption to animation and back again was not so abrupt and frantic. Even a few blank frames intervening would help. 86.161.61.208 (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 06:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to 86.161.61.208 after end of voting period. Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)