Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fowl breeds

Fowl breeds
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2010 at 22:23:38 (UTC)
 * Reason:A huge, labelled illustration of fowl birds and chickens in particular, high EV.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Fowl, List of chicken breeds
 * FP category for this image:Birds
 * Creator:L. Prang & Co.


 * Support as nominator -- Twilight chill t   22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support this is intense! Excellent scan quality and drawing quality. Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Given its age, it has to be considered historic rather than representing the current variety of chicken breeds. I feel that's not given sufficient weight in the articles, and so EV is low. Two main points, then: Chicken varieties can become extinct, and even if not, are usually transformed considerably over the course of 140 years of breeding. Also, the popularity of chicken breeds will change - commercially, only (egg-)layers and broilers remain on any noteworthy scale today. It's therefore important to state very clearly that this image represents a historic situation. And I think it would be good to state which, if any, are extinct, or conversely, if true, state that all are extant. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of historical value, it is certainly there. I checked out the mentoned breeds and found what we have: Spanish, Houdan, La Flèche, Light and Dark Brahmas, Dominiques, Sultan Fowl, Crèvecœur... Twilight chill  t   10:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the quality is good and with the historic clarification it would have good EV. However, I cannot support an image which I don't really get. There are over 20 breeds here, and I have absolutely no idea which is which. It needs a good legend (like they have on commons) or a very clear caption (that will be eventually copied to commons). and the legend in use it not quite clear. The numbers by the breeds are pretty washed out, and I think to deserve a FP status; the text in the image should be clearer. Higher res? Nergaal (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think my computer was not loading the full res. Still, when zooming, there are a lot of smudges that become very visible (and I am not sure that they were intended to be in the picture in the first place). I would think some restoration is necessary before becoming FP-worthy. Nergaal (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the LargeImage template, which links to tools for easier viewing of such images. I think it would be useful to repeat the text from the image in the image description. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, sorry. Seems to be very much a historical illustration for a non-historical article- it's not of the kind of standard that would be expected in modern works on the subject. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think everything has a historical dimension, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the case of animal breeding. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support A high-quality, very interesting illustration. wacky  wace  17:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per J Milburn. Also you can't read the names of them! That's pretty key information for this image... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, all that info is now in the image description. Also, you can read the names when you view the full size image or zoom in using one of the large image viewers. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True, I didn't notice the legend. But I stand by my oppose, it seems so out of date it's not suitable for a modern encyclopedia. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support with the legend copied to wiki the image is ok. Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Twilight chill  t   09:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)