Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Haeckel Arachnida.jpg

Haeckel's arachnids
[[Image:Haeckel Arachnida.jpg|thumb|200px|"Arachnida" from [[Ernst Haeckel]]'s Kunstformen der Natur, 1904

Edit by trialsanderrors— stamped out borders, background brightness corrected – uploaded over original.]]
 * Reason:This is a high quality scan of Ernst Haeckel's arachnid illustrations from Kunstformen der Natur. I think it illustrates the article arachnid very well.
 * Articles this image appears in:Arachnid, Kunstformen der Natur
 * Creator:Ernst Haeckel
 * Nominator: KFP (talk | contribs)


 * Support, with preference for edited version. &mdash; KFP (talk | contribs) 15:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Great illustration, flawless scan, but why are the links to the species (even on the talk page) all red?--HereToHelp 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because no one's written the articles yet. Not surprising considering there are some 70,000 named species. Mgiganteus1 15:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know red links mean a nonexistent article...but with that many species, I might be able to forgive that.--HereToHelp 02:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's Haeckel-time again?! I'll support as soon as the species on the pic got articles. Otherwise it's more like eye candy. Oppose. --Dschwen 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But it illustrates arachnid right? This seems like asking a panorama of New York city to link to articles of every building visible, not just the article on the city... Debivort 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder why you chose that example :-), as I happen to have an example for just that (but maybe you knew that...). Granted, its not every building, but the notable ones (better than none at all...) --Dschwen 09:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha no, that was a coincidence. That said, I think that image would have perfectly illustrated New York, without any blue links to the buildings - of course it's better with them though. Debivort 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support The picture is attractive and highly informative. That we have no articles on the species is the (very understandable) fault of article-writers.  18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - it illustrates arachnid just as well as any one of the species. Debivort 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - What is this, the fourth Haeckel print to be nominated? Well, if it ain't broke... RyGuy17 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is I believe the 9th to be nominated, and looks like it will be the 7th promoted.--ragesoss 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Haeckel rocks. Witty lama 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Needs to be cleaned up a little bit around the edges though. ~ trialsanderrors 06:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Wonderfully illustrated, very nice Anchorage 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Could the borders which enter and leave the frame be cropped out? Leon 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard to do, since some of the arachnids already touch the borders of the image. It might be possible to airbrush them out though. ~ trialsanderrors 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, see edit. ~ trialsanderrors 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - These ones are always good. Also the red links link to Commons articles, not Wikipedia. It is very unlikely that we are going to have pictures on every one of those species, even if an article was written. C  hris_huh talk 12:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Tomer T 20:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's possible that we do have articles on some of these spiders, just that the scientific names have changed since this plate was drawn. That's often the case with Haeckel's drawings. It can be very difficult to track down the new names just using the web (i've done so with a few of his drawings before). For example spider #1 (Tegeocranus hericins) gets only 3 hits on Google, all somewhat based on this image's description page. Not hugely helpful. Anyone who wants to have a go finding new scientific names or common names is welcome. —Pengo 13:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Supportedit by Trialsanderrors, nice visual image.-- – Dakota 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit, which should be uploaded over the original.--ragesoss 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems a little overbrightened to me (the numbers and the lines that should be close to black are a pretty light grey), but it's something of a matter of taste... and an improvement, in any case. By the way, I can provide something closer to the original scan if it will help (before I fiddled with it in Picasa).--ragesoss 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well technically the colored areas should not be affected (I spent about an hour creating a mask for this yesterday), but I toned it down a bit. I guess those darkened borders have a certain nostalgic appeal. ~ trialsanderrors 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the hangup with this one? I could upload my edit over ragesoss's original if that solves the deadlock, since he already ok'ed it. ~ trialsanderrors 06:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit uploaded over original) --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)