Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Haeckel Lacertilia

Haeckel Lacertilia


This image is a lithograph from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur, showing a variety of lizards. It is in Lizard, and the talk page includes links to the articles for several of the species pictured.


 * Nominate and support. - ragesoss 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lets just make the whole book FP and be done with it. -Ravedave 05:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ack Redrave (reminds me of those "sure shot" NASA picture nominations). --Dschwen 07:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I could imagine better illustrations for lizards. Mikeo 07:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The color in this one is somewhat bland, but it's otherwise clear and well-drawn.  In terms of encyclopedic value, these lithographs are superb.  That a number of Haeckel's other lithographs have been made featured is, in my opinion, no better reason to oppose this lithograph than it is to oppose the next picture from Fir0002, who also has many FPs. bcasterline t 16:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. To me, the "blandness" makes it feel as though I'm actually reading one of these old books.  I find these lithographs to be rather encyclpedic, keep 'em coming! --Lewk_of_S e rthic contrib talk 04:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, I know previous noms should not affect my vote, but this is not as pleasing as the sea anemones, or as funny as the bat faces. And I do think they're quite a bit exaggerated (as many old illustrations are - have you seen Dürer's rhino?), so that lessens the encyclpedic value (in an article about lizards, not about Haeckel). --Janke | Talk 11:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Dürer's Rhinoceros :) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not much is as pleasing as the sea anemones. But yes, as a real rhino illustration (rather than an historical one), the Dürer would never do.  But anything by Dürer, if high quality images sources were available, would deserve FP status as far as I'm concerned, as long they found their way into any article.  I was actually sort of surprised about the bats being nominated (and unanimously supported)... that was fairly low on my list of the Haeckel lithos; I guess humor goes a long way.  But even if an accurate contemporary illustration or composite photograph was availabe as the main "lizards" image, don't you think this one would still have a place in the article (granted, the muted colors may be a turn-off for FP)?  --ragesoss 16:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I might support this if it was in a Haeckel article, but now it's in Lizards, where it is not very "accurate" or encyclopedic. Sure, it's a nice image in the taxobox, but only two of the lizards in the image have their own articles... --Janke | Talk 17:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually five of Haeckel's eight lizards have articles (the "two" links are to commons pages). I've updated the image page so they're easier to find now. But I agree that this plate does not contain the most accurate of illustrations. —Pengo 22:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support While these images would not be very useful on individual species pages, they are the penultimate image for orders and suborders like Frog or Lizard as they display the wide-range within that order. Staxringold 15:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should hold out for the ultimate image, in that case. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

~ Veledan • Talk 18:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)