Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Giraffes Necking

Necking between two male giraffes

 * Reason:A well-composed image of good technical quality, showing a unique and perhaps misunderstood giraffe ritual. Encyclopedic and detailed. An FP on Commons.
 * Proposed caption:Male giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis), such as the two pictured here, often engage in necking for various reasons, including combat and competition over females. Males with longer necks and heavier heads are at an advantage in duels and thus have greater access to estrous females, suggesting that the giraffe's distinctive long neck may be a product of sexual selection.
 * Articles this image appears in:giraffe and Homosexuality in animals
 * Creator:user:LucaGaluzzi


 * Support as nominator Malachirality 00:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support--Mbz1 00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support - At the first fleeting glance of the thumb, I thought this showed a windmill - yes, I'm myopic... ;-) Doesn't look like a very fierce necking battle, though. --Janke | Talk 07:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. Does this really belong in the Homosexuality in animals article? I mean they're necking, not necking; I think it's a little bit misleading, especially with an image like this that could be misinterpreted that way. --jjron 07:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Had the same thoughts - but, in that article, this image is used more as an illustration than an example. One reason for my only weak support. --Janke | Talk 08:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it is just being used as an illustration of giraffes, but the worry is that two male giraffes 'necking' could be interpreted by some as indicating that this is a homosexual behaviour, when it's not. If no image is available of actual homosexual giraffe behaviour, then perhaps a picture of a single giraffe would be better to avoid possible confusion. --jjron 09:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather take it off fromHomosexuality in animals too.--Mbz1 13:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it fits in the Homosexuality in animals article, it only makes mention of actual sexual activity and shows no correlation between necking and giraffe - related homosexual behaviour, potentially misleading people into believing that necking is in fact homosexual activity. --84.90.46.116 13:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it fits in the Homosexuality in animals article, it only makes mention of actual sexual activity and shows no correlation between necking and giraffe - related homosexual behaviour, potentially misleading people into believing that necking is in fact homosexual activity. --84.90.46.116 13:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Support. I like it overall, but some concerns leading to the 'weak'. The colours seem just a little out, there's some distracting blurry grass in the extreme foreground, the grass around the giraffes is a bit too long obscuring a bit too much of their legs, and the long grass and shadows make it hard to tell whether the giraffe at the right in particular is a male (which is very relevant for this photo which is specifically nominated to show a male/male behaviour). Also questionable use in homosexuality article discussed above. --jjron 09:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming I'm looking at what I'm supposed to be looking at, it seems pretty evident at full resolution that the right giraffe is male. And per the "Homosexuality in animals" article, does either A) removing the pic or B) editing the section to incorporate the pic have an impact on the the picture's FP candidacy? I'd be willing to do one or the other. --Malachirality 16:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can see it's a male, my point was just that with the grass and shadows, and at this size (i.e., even at 'full size'), you have to look pretty closely to be sure. I'd rather it be removed from the other article for reasons stated above, rather than rewriting that section to try to make this fit there when it's potentially misleading (I'm not sure if you were just asking rhetorically, but yes, it does affect the FP candidacy, as an FP is meant to be encyclopaedic by being correct and adding value to an article - if it's potentially misleading in how it's being used, and I'm not the only one saying this, then it's actually being the opposite of encyclopaedic). --jjron 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Too static. I would like to see an image where their heads are together (yes, they do use their little antlers) or with some motion blur in the appropriate place. Even better perhaps, an animation! So that's the encyclopaedic criterion again: doesn't illustrate the subject. Separa 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose My impression, and what seems to be the general consensus among voters, is that this article does not belong in Homosexuality in animals, which means that I'm only considering in terms of the other possible interpretations. As said above, the shot doesn't communicate combat really effectively, so it's not a really great portrayal of its proposed FPC5 subject matter. SingCal 16:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The subject of the picture is not combat, but are rather giraffe and necking, which are clearly and aesthetically illustrated in the picture. Combat/competition is just one of many functions of necking, and is merely included in the caption as an interpretation and to introduce the interesting idea of sexual selection. The giraffes might not be fighting at all (and the caption can be edited), but this, IMO at least, does not detract from the picture's encyclopedic significance regarding the animal (giraffe) and the behavior (necking). --Malachirality 17:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Image was removed from "animals" article. --Malachirality 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It just looks like they're... passing by each other. 8thstar 02:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)