Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Maslow's hierarchy of needs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Maslow's hierarchy of needs[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2013 at 02:59:29 (UTC)

Original – A diagram representing the Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Reason
good image, has EV
Articles in which this image appears
Abraham Maslow, Aspiration Management, Disposable Energy, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Psychology, Reward management, Self-esteem, Work motivation
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator
Factoryjoe
  • Support as nominator --Mediran (tc) 02:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I found the the white-on-orange and white-on-red text on the bottom two layers to be a bit difficult to read, and I suspect that others will squint at the next two layers. A quick Google image search suggests that there isn't any consensus on the colour scheme to use here, so swapping things to more reader-friendly colours seems a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Are colors necessary at all? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem is whether this concept - a visual way to show how needs build on each other - is something that a Wikipedian-created image can ever be considered an FP. It's text in a triangle, after all. I could see Maslow's original illustration being notable, but I think FPs have a minimal complexity necessary. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Support FFS, we FP toasters. Moreover, I want a copy of this featured to show my wife that sex is indeed a need, not a want. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Very well-photographed toasters (at least in theory: Do we actually have toaster FPs?). Diagrams, though, are eminently redrawable, and so need to be particularly well-done. I'm not sure this subject can rise to that level, since its extreme simplicity means it can be drawn to about the same quality by anyone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. "morality" is listed twice. I would guess that the listing at "Safety" level is incorrect since morality seems a higher-level function than the others in that section. (I also agree that some of the text is harder to read than it should be.) 86.160.220.22 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
To me, "security of morality" is a difficult concept to comprehend, and to the extent that it makes sense at all, it does not seem to be on a par with the more basic securities listed on that level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.220.22 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
... however, "security of morality" does seem to be shown in the same way in a number of other sources, including several books, so I'm beginning to think it must be right after all. Hmmm, it does look a bit odd to me though... 86.160.220.22 (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I concur with your sentiment though, as it seems out of place. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)