Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Day old chick black background.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chick[edit]

Day old chick looking to the left (its right)
Day old chick (cropped)

I rather like this image (obviously or I wouldn't be nominating it ;-), black background sharply defines the feathers etc, and provides a nice background. Effect was achieved by firing a flash from a relatively close distance and have a high shutter speed value (thus when the flash light dispersed all the background became underexposed, or black)

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 10:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice chick! --Janke | Talk 10:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice shot. I hope it won't catch avian influenza! Glaurung 12:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it will just be slaughtered, gutted, cooked and eaten. A much better destiny... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it might end it's days a very old chook - depending if it's a rooster or a chicken. If it lay's eggs, we don't use if for meat but for eggs, obviuosly if its a rooster... --Fir0002 www 21:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Would make a cute picture of the day - BWF89 15:49 27 March 2006 UTC
  • Support. Why can't I be like Fir0002 and get all the hot chicks? :) Staxringold 16:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support even if its fate is to be slaughted and gutted. —Pengo 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great shot. bcasterline t 17:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Comment. Interesting what results can be obtained with just a little imagination. I support inclusion, but under what heading? It doesn't qualify as a representative of chicks (ie there isn't anything noteworthy about this particular bird). Rather, the theme seems to be photography, or, better, 'The Fascination of the Mundane'.. --Philopedia 18:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that being unremarkable is what makes it representative of chicks. It's also a great shot. (Which, together, make it the perfect FPC.) bcasterline t 19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Agreed, an FP of a chick is a normal chick photographed well to produce a visually pleasing and informative image. Check out the FP criteria. This is a super photo ~ Veledan • Talk 21:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very spiffy looking. -Mask 19:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Veledan. –Joke 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support cropped. Very nice, maybe crop a little left and right? --Dschwen 21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing them side by side I'd say as an artistic image the original composition is better, illustrating fragileness in a hostile dark world. The cropped version on the other hand focusses more on the chick as an encyclopedic subject. --Dschwen 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree, original is better, more pleasing to the eye. Encyclopedicism? It's the same chick... --Janke | Talk 22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed to support cropped. The cropped version will use the space in the article better to show the chick (thumbnail can be larger withut wasting space with large patches of darkness). --Dschwen 06:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good clean photo and highly illustrative of the subject. Procrastinator-General 22:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A good picture that clearly shows what a chick is. I also like the background. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuzzy support for any shot.
    • Would like to point out some severe Jpeg artefacts in the top area of the background, though Circeus 01:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, insufficient caption. It should be a sentence and add some information to the article (preferably by refering back to the text). We are often too lax when it comes to checking captions. Some FPCs get through without any caption at all. BrokenSegue 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're given the species. We're given its age. That's a lot of information in three words. What more do you want? —Pengo 05:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no mention of the fact that it's looking to the left... — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 14:39
        • It fails to mention the behavior, appearance, maturity of chicks at day one (doesn't need to mention all of those but something more would be nice). Do they have a special kind of feathers at that age? Does its color change?, etc. Optimally the picture would be in a section about the chicken life cycle. Perhaps Wikipedia:Caption would be illuminating (basically the caption needs to connect the picture to the article, not just float there). BrokenSegue 20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's material for an article on chicks. While I agree the caption could be a little larger, there's no reason to expand it into something of article proportions. Captions are supposed to be short and to the point. - Mgm|(talk) 08:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - fluffeh.--Deglr6328 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wonderful image of how cute life can be. — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice shot Leidiot 03:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The quality/size of the photo also allows it to illustrate the removal of the tip of the chick's beak, which is done so that it cannot injure other chickens (if I'm not mistaken, I could well be wrong). It would be great if someone who is knowledgable about this could confirm that, and add it to the caption. As a side note, most chicks I've seen are a lot more yellow than that, I assume that this chick is too young (or maybe a different breed) to be that yellow, again something that could be added to the caption. --Aramգուտանգ 09:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you're seeing on the beak tip is the "egg tooth" - the chicken uses that to open up the shell of his warm and cozy little nursery... --Janke | Talk 11:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nice picture. --Terence Ong 15:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppoer - cute. Bertilvidet 16:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppoer. i like it. pschemp | talk 06:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuzzy support for cropped version, provided the caption is expanded with latin name and place where photograph was taken. - Mgm|(talk) 08:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its latin name, like that of all chickens, is Gallus gallus. I'm not sure why the location is important: any context has been removed and it's a domesticated animal. —Pengo 05:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (not the nominator/photographer)[reply]
  • Support I prefer the wider, Kubrickian version. Mooveeguy 16:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would some of you mind picking a version if you have a preference? It will make it easier to determine which image is promoted for whoever closes this nomination. Thanks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My decision would be to promote the original in this case. Unfortunately, it's rare for people to come back to change their vote when a new version is uploaded. On the other hand, if they don't come back, they can't complain if you as closer interpret their vote one way or the other! :-) In this case I slightly support the rationale for the original - it's a more striking image. And given a consensus to promote but no consensus re the version, I prefer to respect the photographer's original composition ~ Veledan • Talk 00:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Cute! -- King of Hearts talk 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Adorable - • The Giant Puffin • 16:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Day old chick black background.jpg - Promoted original. Decision between the two was tricky due to lack of preference, but we had 3 in favour of original (Janke, Mooveeguy, Veledan) and 2 for cropped (Dschwen, Mgm). |→ Spaully°τ 21:41, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Day_old_chick_black_background.jpg&oldid=1138497266"