Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Equine evolution.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Equine evolution.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 17:05:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Equine evolution. Composed from Skeletons of Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe, Germany.
From left to right: Size development, biometrical changes in the skull, reduction of fingers (left forefoot)
Support -- Llez (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)- Support — Actually the best I've seen this year (and we're almost October!). Lycaon (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
One small comment The genus names should be in italics, while the geological periods should not be. Lycaon (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Done No problem --Llez (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Another small comment ;-) the yellow note boxes aren't all congruent, it would look tidier if they were. Oh, and 'toes' not 'fingers'. - MPF (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support - MPF (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment As it is the forefoot (the hand) which is depicted, I chose "finger" (but everyone can change it, if he wants to). The boxes are arranged horizontally (with explanation) and vertically (with other explanations). If you go to the overlaying parts, you can see the comments for the horizontal and the vertical boxes respectively. That's the reason for this arrangement. --Llez (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment "Finger" is normally only used for arms, not for forelegs, in English. But I'll wait to see what others think. What I meant with the boxes, was that they were not fully aligned (e.g. column 1 started 343 px from the top and was 7620 px high, column 2 started 329 px from the top and was 7634 px high), I have aligned them all now. - MPF (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for aligning. Finger /toes: I'm not so familiar with English to know this difference. I accept your argument, I change to "toes". --Llez (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Question Why the most recent above, and the most ancient below ? Looks unlogical to me and seems a contrary of an evolution... It is not "evolutive", is it ? (and sorry for my poor english too, but I'm sure you understand what I mean) --Jebulon (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment All genealogical trees (human or in palaeontology) are arranged in this way (the oldest at bottom, the youngest on top). This corresponds also to the stratigraphical layers in geology (the youngest layers - and fossils - at the top). --Llez (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support Many thanks for the answer & explanations. It is indeed more logical than it seems ! Could be featured among the featured, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Wow, I'm impressed, this may be almost as good as my pet flower poster ;-). Carry on with the good work, the project aknowledges! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- PS - Isn't the size of the labels way too large? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's fine as it is nicely readable in thumb, yet not overpowering so. Lycaon (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- PS - Isn't the size of the labels way too large? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support Very good, nice, quality, useful, educational...--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Weak support The highlights on the skulls seem a bit bright, but this is good quality and educational, it reminds me of a museum placard. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Would like to see a white background version, if only for comparison. Steven Walling 18:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Info Sorry, it is not possible to me to do this within the next days, it's a lot of work, and I don't have the time. It lasted severeal days (besides other things) to arrange the picture in this way. I tried several backgrounds and I found black to be the best. --Llez (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Question Were all the of the individual photographs taken by you, Llez? The source section doesn't give any information on the source of the photos, it merely says "Own work", which could be referring only to the collage. Kaldari (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Info All photos are taken by me in the "Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe" (SNMK). Equus grevyii is an original skeleton, the others are replicas of specimens of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, also presented in the SNMK. --Llez (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Question of a Beotian : why choosing a zebra, and not a horse, even both are members of "Equus", and both at the top of evolution ?
- Info You can choose any modern Equus as example. But the reason is simple: At the Museum (SMNK, see above) these four skeletons are mounted to demonstrate horse-evolution. No other modern Equus-species is shown as skeleton. To photograph other species, you must have skeletons arranged in the same way. But I hadn't. In addition, I dont think that the skeletons would show serious differences. --Llez (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for interesting answering.--Jebulon (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I think that the annotation must be corrected, if I'm not wrong (Equus grevyi looks better than Equus greyvi ) Sorry if I mistake.--Jebulon (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the hint. A writing error. Corrected now. --Llez (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals
