Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2013 at 02:59:29 (UTC)
 * Reason:good image, has EV
 * Articles in which this image appears:Abraham Maslow, Aspiration Management, Disposable Energy, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Psychology, Reward management, Self-esteem, Work motivation
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
 * Creator:Factoryjoe


 * Support as nominator -- Mediran ( t  •  c ) 02:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I found the the white-on-orange and white-on-red text on the bottom two layers to be a bit difficult to read, and I suspect that others will squint at the next two layers. A quick Google image search suggests that there isn't any consensus on the colour scheme to use here, so swapping things to more reader-friendly colours seems a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Are colors necessary at all? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is whether this concept - a visual way to show how needs build on each other - is something that a Wikipedian-created image can ever be considered an FP. It's text in a triangle, after all. I could see Maslow's original illustration being notable, but I think FPs have a minimal complexity necessary. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support FFS, we FP toasters. Moreover, I want a copy of this featured to show my wife that sex is indeed a need, not a want. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well-photographed toasters (at least in theory: Do we actually have toaster FPs?). Diagrams, though, are eminently redrawable, and so need to be particularly well-done. I'm not sure this subject can rise to that level, since its extreme simplicity means it can be drawn to about the same quality by anyone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many simple and non-complex items (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electric_steam_iron.jpg) that are FP because they are technically excellent. They lack wow, but still illustrate a concept or thing very well. The reproducible nature of it shouldn't be a major concern. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. "morality" is listed twice. I would guess that the listing at "Safety" level is incorrect since morality seems a higher-level function than the others in that section. (I also agree that some of the text is harder to read than it should be.) 86.160.220.22 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment.Security of Morality and Morality could be construed as different needs. I noted that this text is the same as that which is found here: http://www.maverickpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/maslow-hierarchy.jpg Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, "security of morality" is a difficult concept to comprehend, and to the extent that it makes sense at all, it does not seem to be on a par with the more basic securities listed on that level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.220.22 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ... however, "security of morality" does seem to be shown in the same way in a number of other sources, including several books, so I'm beginning to think it must be right after all. Hmmm, it does look a bit odd to me though... 86.160.220.22 (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with your sentiment though, as it seems out of place. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 07:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)