Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CeratopsiaI BW.jpg

Basal Cerotopsians

 * Reason:highly illustrative, professional quality poster done by a wikipedian.
 * Articles this image appears in:Ceratopsia
 * Creator:User:ArthurWeasley


 * Support as nominator de Bivort 13:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great individual illustrations, and highly useful overall. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was heading to support, then looked at it 'fullsize' - for the level of detail (18 dinosaurs) it's a tad on the pokey side isn't it? Is there no way to get this as an SVG, or even just a bigger jpeg? I mean you give in your reason that it's a "professional quality poster", but it's struggling to be a postcard. --jjron (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * hehe, well I was referring to pro-quality reconstructions of the dinos. I don't know what "pokey" means, but I've asked the creator for a higher resolution version. de Bivort 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the full-size poster (which hasn't been uploaded) is 2800 x 4200 pixels. Sheep81 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Impressive Image -- ZeWrestler  Talk 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can they be ordered according to relative heredity, or at least according to the timespan in which they appeared? They don't seem to have any order right now. The only two that share the same genus are not even next to eachother. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-01-23 16:04Z
 * phylogenetic relationships are non-linear so there is no single ordering, a tree could be drawn in though. Strict timelines with respect to dino species can be very speculative so I would steer you away from that idea, but I've approached the creator about introducing some phylogenetic data into it. de Bivort 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious to the viewer, but they are ordered roughly phylogenetically right now. The two most basal are at the top left, surrounded by others near the "bottom" of the tree. The protoceratopsids are at the center right, and the leptoceratopsids are at the bottom... there is some debate about which of these families is closer to Ceratopsidae. The only exception seems to be that the most derived, Zuniceratops is at the center left. Sheep81 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, A lot of great artwork on a fascinating subject. Higher resolution and some experimentation with the layout would be an added bonus. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I don't think the concept really works at the resolution that has been uploaded. The image is trying to show too much at once. It may be the case that each individual image could become an FA, but the poster is too crammed. Also, it might work better if you abandoned scale and put them in columns. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, scaling them against each was one of the major goals here. There is diversity in size and this shows it, even in a relatively narrow group of animals. So I don't think unscaling them helps, but we may have a higher rez version coming, so please check back.
 * The problem is that the scales are so different that they should almost be plotted on a logarithmic scale. Which brings up the fact that if scale is what you're interested in, a ruler with a notch at the size of each species would be a better representation. So it's either too crammed or a tool that doesn't suit the purpose. Either way, it's not the best we have to offer. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't make out any of the fine details on the dinosaurs, and i think it would look better in SVG format --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but SVG is a terrible idea here. This is not vector art - it's bit map art, and SVG is a shabbily implemented format besides. That said, a higher res version may come that would address your first concern. de Bivort 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we should ask Arthur to upload the higher resolution version. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Update from the creator: I've uploaded the high resolution versions for the two ceratopsian posters over the low res one. The species are actually in order from left to right and from up to bottom in chronological order (see the faunal stages). Phylogenical trees are a little bit tricky and they tend to change with new discoveries. I've tried to do that but could not come up with anything satisfactory. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please consider the new version with respect to detail in the illustrations. de Bivort 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - high quality drawings from Wikipedian, illustrates the topic well, ordering identified in the caption. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-01-25 13:55Z
 * Support...again I've already given my support above, but I like this higher resolution one better. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 18:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support..again, For the same reasons as above. The image has been greatly improved by the new annotations and increase in resolution. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Funkynusayri (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Excellent -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. For the detail I still wouldn't mind seeing it bigger, but I think it now makes it. As far as I can tell it tries to strike a decent balance for what is known of the Ceratopsia (due to disagreements between palaeontologists there's probably no one definite number of inclusions). (Note: I hope no one minds, but for clarity I have struck through the 'duplicate' supports from the same people.). --jjron (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the image has some sourcing about its accuracy. gren グレン 10:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the caption. Each image was checked for accuracy through WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review... &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-01-26 17:53Z
 * I read that but we need to know 1) the sources used to create the image 2) have the conversation of correctness attacked to the image. Just like any article, information on images must be verifiable. gren グレン 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is attached - it's in the caption. That said, this is an unreasonable standard. We don't ask for a citation to photos of brocolli, or National parks or insects - we take the word of the photo creators. In this case, the name of the animal provides verifiability. My two cents. de Bivort 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to think that the information provided is not correct? I too take as acceptable what has been said above, unless there's a reason to think otherwise. Remember also that basically any dinosaur reconstruction, especially showing external details such as colours, etc, is to a large degree educated guesswork; we just have to go with the best current expert knowledge and opinion. As far as I can tell that has been done here. --jjron (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to think it's wrong. It's just that we need to be given some references on user-created media to make it clear that the user is not just making it up.  Lots of unsourced articles are correct but we need them sourced for verifiability.  Areas of artistic discretion should merely be mentioned as such.  Where did he get the data for the scale?  Or the locations of the animals?  I think it's a good image and I think the author could easily tell us what sources he used to make sure the image was accurate. gren グレン 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Arthur is one of the premier dinosaur artists on Wikipedia and this is the culmination of his work with ceratopsians. See the Species of Psittacosaurus article for more examples. Sheep81 (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Don't care for posters like this. Anyway, I think I recognize it from my 1st grade classroom. Rudy Breteler (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)