2009/7/14 Nathan <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:. > >> Here's a great example: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Face_of_a_Southern_Yellowjacket_Queen >> >> What an incredible image. This is a *wasp*, and we have great detail >> of the *hairs* on its forehead. Stunning sharpness, and this photo >> would not be out of place in a good science magazine. Yet two editors >> managed to oppose its promotion to "featured" on the basis of the tip >> of one antenna being obscured by an out of focus leaf fragment. >> Another, neutral, came up with "An amazing detail and sharpness...with >> a clumsy framing and cropping ruining an otherwise excellent picture. >> ... I will not support the promotion as I find little excuse for those >> flaws." >> >> These would be perfectly apt comments if we were voting on National >> Geographic's "photo of the year". But Wikipedia "featured picture"? >> Whee. >> > > > > You should ask Durova about featured image reviews - she had a live one not > long ago. Photograph of a moon (Eros perhaps?) that was the best that anyone > could possibly take with current (government) technology, but it was opposed > for > reasons more suited to critiquing everyday items in posed situations. > > Nathan
Titan the image was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Titan_globe.jpg which rather runs into issues with the existence of the more recent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Titan2005.jpg -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
