Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Utah teapot

Utah teapot

 * Reason:The Utah teapot is one of a handful of iconic models from the early development of 3D computer graphics, having been developed in 1975. This render of the teapot uses unique textures, bump maps and lighting to demonstrate key 3D rendering techniques like texturing, manipulation of lighting, highlights & shadows, radiosity and reflection. Image rendered in POV-ray.
 * Articles in which the Alt 2 image appears:Utah teapot, Computer graphics, Phong shading, 3D modeling, Bump mapping, Radiosity
 * Creator:Dhatfield using the teapot model developed by Martin Newell and modified by his co-worker, Jim Blinn.


 * Support as nominator --Dhatfield (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Confusing picture, no need to include all 3D design/rendering techniques in one particular image. Black spot (that take over 10% of image) distracts viewer from the main subject --Mothmolevna (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 - all concerns have been adressed --Mothmolevna (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your constructive criticism.Dhatfield (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your constructive criticism.Dhatfield (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Alt2 Meets all of the FPC criteria very well for being a rendered model. The encyclopedic value of this render is undeniable. The reflection of the spout does concern me a little because it doesn't reflect the curves of the teapot very well(IMO). Try corpping the picture of the Alternative from the bottom and left side it's way off center. victorrocha (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose edits alts - not used in any articles. Guest9999 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course the edits are not used in any articles. If the edit is featured, then it will be replaced in the article. Muhammad (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are not in the article means that they have not passed the peer review of those editors that improve and maintain the article, being featured is not an argument for including an image in an article; it should show its worth independent of status - without being in an article these images have not done that. The "edits" "alts" differ significantly from the original image (which is in the article) and I don't think it should be taken for granted that the new image would just be accepted. Guest9999 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support alt2 The image labeled original is not as typical as alt2, and has too much other distracting things in it. But you ought to state the source clearer on the image's page, atm it just says the model is from 1975. Narayanese (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Dhatfield (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Interesting, but not intersting enough for an FP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your objection. Are you suggesting something between the original and simplified versions, or are you referring to the subject matter, where encyclopedic value is not in question. Dhatfield (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose I feel like you've nominated two completely seperate images here, especially considering how they are used in different articles for different purposes. In addition, the old caption makes a somewhat confusing Aladdin's Lamp reference, and the new caption "The Utah Teapot" (on the article), is uninformative. smooth0707  (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3D graphics consists of two distinct steps: modeling and rendering. In the context of this FPC it is the model that has significance, not the form in which it is presented. The image that is selected by the community as the best representation of the model (so far, Alt 2) is used, with appropriate captions, in numerous articles. Dhatfield (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand how it works. It seems that this image has only been added to articles by the nom in the last 24 hrs (here, here, here and here so you can understand my doubt.  smooth0707  (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am only beginning to understand how the system works. Alt 2 has only existed for just over 48 hours. Guest9999's hit-and-run oppose and your comment regarding the confusion created by having different versions in different articles encouraged me to clarify the use of the image. For one editor to oppose on the grounds that an edit is not in an article while another editor opposes on the grounds that it was recently added to articles is confusing. I see the shadowy hand of The Photographer's Cabal at work here ;) Dhatfield (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn Dhatfield (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)