Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Long haired rat

Long Haired Rat

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2012 at 02:38:57 (UTC)

Original – Rattus villosissimus, the Long- haired Rat is a species of rodent in the Muridae family which is native to Australia. Most of the research on the Long-haired rat has been conducted during times of massive population fluctuations and therefore little is known about their biology in a non-eruptive period. Pictured here being released from a cloth sack, the animal was bi-catch in a grid of traps layed out collecting data on another species

Upsampled for assessment at "required resolution" and cropped for detail

Reason: IQ and high EV given the relatively unphotographed nature of this animal. This image is failed by criteria 2, being of low resolution, however given its exceptional quality I believe that if it was upsampled to meet the requirements it would still pass: the image has a far higher "spatial resolution" than actual resolution.
Articles in which this image appears: Rattus villosissimus
FP category for this image: animals
Creator: Benjamint 02:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Benjamint 02:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well below the minimum size requirements. The criteria make it quite clear the nominator should explain why it would have been technically difficult to obtain a larger image. Since this animal was just released from captivity in front of the photographer, it is not obvious that a standard resolution picture couldn't have been obtained rather than this tiny 1.7MP web-sized image. For the record: I'm absolutely opposed to upsampling and would see its use to "meet the requirements" as gaming the system. I'd much rather be convinced that this is be best size reasonably achievable. Colin°^Talk 08:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my head the bag behind it looks like the rat has just parachuted in, Felix style! hehe (yes I'm exceedingly bored right now) gazhiley 09:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose btw - as the nom itself states - it doesn't meet criteria... gazhiley 09:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not convinced that these new and controversial criteria are serving us particularly well. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody dies if a valuable and technically adequate picture fails to achieve FA. There's a good deal of arbitrariness about the system. Witness the bizarre oppose votes on the superb portrait elsewhere on this page. If you took those opinions here, we'd have folk opposing for the "bland side profile". Well, I don't agree with the notion that a half-decent picture of a wild animal entitles one to a position at FP regardless of what size it gets uploaded at. It is valuable for a thumbnail on Wikipedia. But what is featurable about this? Colin°^Talk 17:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will consider for a review on next week (criteria 5). :) Jkadavoor (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article had no picture so the 7-day rule can be waived per criteria 5. You may !vote now! Colin°^Talk 17:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My intention is not to game the system, the moral of these nominations is that the system is supporting an arbitrary standard, as you said yourself. Hence the upsampling. If I understand your comment above correctly, to you arbitrary oppose votes justifies an arbitrary system? To me arbitrary votes show the system needs tweaking! To be clear I'm not saying there are mitigating circumstances for low res, I'm saying it's not low res. Benjamint 23:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The voting criteria here are the result of consensus discussions among folk with quite different tastes and opinions over what makes an FP for Wikipedia. One person's "bland portrait" is another's exemplary work. What one regards as an arbitrary threshold set too low, another might consider to high. What one regards as an over complex set of rules, another regards as not being specific enough. We can't please everyone. Nor can we fully understand why some folk support mediocre images and oppose brilliant ones. If we all thought the same way we wouldn't need to collect the votes and weigh them: one reviewer would be sufficient. We have a size threshold for FP. That's the rules of the game. If you want to play, upload pictures above the threshold or explain why it wasn't possible. It is not hard, but may mean you have pictures you think are great that can't be nominated. Well that's life and nobody died. I'm utterly opposed to upsampling. It doesn't make Wikipedia better: the picture isn't improved, the filesize is increased, the download time increased. As I said on the other nomination, image size is a surrogate measure for detail resolved/retained. It isn't perfect but has consensus support as a reasonably easy to use criteria. Colin°^Talk 08:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you really interested to tweak the system (I don't think so), a look here may also worth. (@Colin: But what I should do if somebody remove this picture from the article within this week. (Seven days is not a big thing to test the stability though.) Jkadavoor (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only valid reason someone would have to remove this image from the article, would be that they disputed that that this was in fact a long haired rat. Or supplied a better one (but that could happen any time). Colin°^Talk 08:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as the upsampled version is no longer sharp. @Colin: Regarding the arguments about upsampling (making it 2 MP) or downsampling (increasing apparent sharpness) to "game the system": who cares? Just to be clear, I also oppose any such manipulation, and I believe everything should be presented at original size. But ultimately, come review time, I view everything in a resized resolution, and expect the image to either be perfect at 2 MP or decently sharp at 5 MP regardless of its nominal resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already stated above why upsampling is harmful and pointless gaming. It matters to our readers, which is what ultimately matters, not some little bronze star. Let's be clear: if someone upsampled pictures in order to get them to pass the FP criteria, I'd go to ANI to have them blocked. And we don't need "here's what it looks like upsampled" samples posted alongside FP nominations: I'm perfectly capable of doing this myself should I care to. This arguing over the threshold is just wasting everyone's time, which is what the simple criteria threshold is designed to avoid. Nominators would do well to accept the rules of the game and accept there's an element of chance involved: win some lose some. We aren't deciding how best to distribute food parcels in a famine... Colin°^Talk 12:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now I know you're not joking this time; I still think you must only be contributing here for Comic Relief though Colin. It's the only explanation. --benjamint 14:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you; I'm just belaboring a technicality. Fortunately upsampling is not a major problem (this is the first or second time I've seen someone do this an either en or Commons FP), but downsampling... people seem to think it improves sharpness while all it does is discard information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution too low for a relatively common animal. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]