Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Left femur of extinct elephant

Left femur of extinct elephant
Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2014  at 07:36:36 (UTC)
 * Reason:A very beautiful image, among Wikipedia's best work, and high resolution. We only have 2 anatomical images that are featured media on Wiki, and hopefully this can make it to 3
 * Articles in which this image appears:Bone
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
 * Creator:Wellcome images


 * Support as nominator – Tom (LT) (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bad lighting-- The Herald 13:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not really convinced of the EV, I'm afraid. If this was the only (or one of the only) specimens from a particular species known to science (like with File:Ambondro lingual.jpg) I'd be all for it, but it unidentified, and I can't honestly see it staying in the lead at bone for very long. (And I note that it was only added today.) J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What does EV mean? I suggest you have a look in the commons category, I think this image is miles above the other images in the group hence my nomination. I can see being in the lead for only a day could be a problem, I'll be happy to wait and renominate if this is a sticking concern. The previous image was much poorer (you can look in the change log and see a scanned image of a book).--Tom (LT) (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * EV in FPC discussions refers to "encyclopaedic value", which is one of the Featured picture criteria. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I think you might be looking at the wrong category. Try browsing Category:Bones and its other subcategories. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the category I linked to. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, you linked to Category:Bone, without the s. It's a different category with a more limited scope. The nominated image is actually miscategorised. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As an editor of anatomy articles I find this picture particularly appealing, the way it highlights the bone and features that evoke age and past use, of something as timeless and essential as bones. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I have left a post regarding this nomination at the Anatomy WikiProject, of which I'm a member, here: . --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose for lighting. Becky Sayles (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Also, what is the concern with the lighting? I feel the lighting is very well done, and it would be downright impossible to have uniform lighting on such a large bone, and it wouldn't provide the same sense of depth as the image has now. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 10:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Citation needed for it being impossible to light the whole thing evenly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Great EV, which imo should be the most important consideration. We're not just promoting 'pretty pictures' here. A unique image. If lighting is an issue, the image can always be brighten a bit. Let's not trash this image because it's not 100% picture perfect. This image could also be employed in the Mammoth article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We shouldn't use such pseudo-dynamic lighting for encyclopedically illustrating a bone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "pseudo-dynamic"? Sounds a bit academic. Are you suggesting that anything done with a photo-editor is "pseudo ..."? If making visual adjustments improves the image and doesn't compromise details, clarity, EV, composition -- why not brighten a bit? We should a least see an ALT image before making blind judgments and placing all/most weight thereon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Using shadows like this attempts to give the bone a dynamic look, perhaps for emotional emphasis, or to make it seem older or stronger than it actually is. Brightening the image will not fix this. It needs to be reasonably well lit, to avoid such harsh shadows... and that demands a retake. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Brightening would only do just that, brighten. No one is trying to add "emotional emphasis". Let's forego the speculation jousting here and at least look at an ALT image, if the nominator is so inclined,  before we embark on any further speculations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You say that, but you are aware that the lighting of subjects can and does convey different emotions and impressions, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am happy to look at an ALT image, although like 'EV' I don't know what that means. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing fancy; Alt just means alternate. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 14:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)