Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ascidians

Ascidians

Ascidiacea, from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur (1904).

This is an antique lithograph from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur, illustrating sea squirts (Ascidiacea or ascidians). I scanned it, touched it up, and uploaded it; Pengo provided the species key.

Nominate and support. - ragesoss 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You guys know my opinion on this one... Here are Haeckel's 6 FPs Image:Haeckel_Prosobranchia.jpg, Image:Haeckel_Actiniae.jpg, Image:Haeckel_Batrachia.jpg, Image:Haeckel_Spumellaria.jpg, Image:Haeckel_Trochilidae.jpg, and finally Image:Haeckel_Chipoptera.jpg. Here is the only failed Haskel FPC: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Haeckel_Lacertilia (AFAIK) -Ravedave 22:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because an artist has a few FP's doesn't mean his other art can't also be featured. There are numerous FPs from NASA. Should we not accept any from NASA in the future? Why not rate the image on its own merits? --BRIAN0918 22:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - yes, we should rate the image by its own merit... but does the image illustrate its subject well? not being familiar with the creature, i have no idea... it's not something like a rose or dragonfly which most peopel have seen, you know...--K.C. Tang 07:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Can't believe you had one fail. Make sure you notify me next time. These pictures can be a great catalyst to encourage people to write articles about the species depicted, especially for the lesser-known taxa! Let's encourage people to upload more old artwork like this! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ravedave is right I think. Why do we have to put every one of these plates through the FP process here? Virtually all Haeckel's images exhibit complete technical mastery and the scans we have are of very high quality. I propose simply making "The Haeckel Kunstformen der Natur Plate Collection" subsection of the FP page and having a gallery of all the works there. Vote?--Deglr6328 22:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the images, particularly the ones with light backgrounds, have some problems and could use better touch-up than what I could do. I never intended to put every one through FPC. I certainly think the whole colletion is something special, though.--ragesoss 22:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. DVD+ R/W 00:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't feel it illustrates the subject terribly well. Before looking at the article, I thought these might have been Fabergé eggs! On Wikipedia in 2006, we can probably do better than hundred-year-old illustrations as our primary source of images for marine biology. I'm also not fond of the way that the 15 sea squirts are lumped together in the article as "assorted". I suggest you or someone individually identifies them as they are on the image page. So overall, opposing because the image doesn't illustrate the topic well enough, and as a combined image, isn't "useful" enough to us. Stevage 07:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree. the image itself may be very pleasing to the eyes, but we also have to consider its encyclopedicity.--K.C. Tang 16:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The illustration is a little too "fantastic" for my taste (quite a bit of "artistic license", I'd say), so I have to agree with Stevage, not the best of encyclopecid illustrations today (in articles that are not about Haeckel or his art). --Janke | Talk 05:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colours seem exaggerated, the pics are over-idealised, and how much better to use actual photos in thr article - Adrian Pingstone 10:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ack Janke, Adrian and Stevage. --Dschwen 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It looks good. It makes people interested in reading more. --Iantresman 22:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. They are very interesting and illuminate the subject better than anything else could. Adrian Pingstone and Stevage : These are "classic" pics that have stood the test of time as the best representatives of their topic. The fact that they are "idealised" is not a problem but an advantage - that way we see all of the features at once in a way that would not be possible in an actual photo. In professional botany, for example, drawings are preferrred over photos as they show all the elements of the plant regardless of the season. Same here. Witt y lama 03:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I'm torn on this one. I love the plate (and thanks again to Ragesoss for providing the image), but as said above, the organisms are overly idealistic. I added the key so I could compare the drawings to the real thing, but there are few photos of these specific species on the web. It's a shame we don't have any articles on the specific creatures. Here's two pics: —Pengo 08:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidnyum elegans, (#5, top right)
Polyclinum aurantium (same genus as 6 & 7 but a different species)

Comment That's exactly what I meant by "too fantastic" - you would never be able to recognize a live specimen using Haeckels litho as a reference. --Janke | Talk 14:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. What I liked about the other Haeckel FPs was that the black-and-white images had amazing contrast, while the color images brought all the subjects together in a single lively scene. This is neither. --BRIAN0918 15:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I could support the whole book and I don't see a problem with that. Renata 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, we can support the whole book as a rare work of art and love, but what many of us can't support here is the lack of encyclopedicity of this particular imgae. A FP is supposed to illustrate its subject in an appropiate manner; a FP is not supposed to be a mere adornment to its subject.--K.C. Tang 03:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support detailed picture Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack Janke unless someone can prove otherwise. -Ravedave 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This drawing, like many other Haeckels, looks cool and colorful, but is too much of a fantasy representation for an encyclopedia. This is not how sea squirts look in the real world. I may have a picture lying around of sea squirts and will see if I can add that to the article. Janderk 09:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]