Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/mad scientist

mad_scientist[edit]

Mad Scientist

Like the running animated horse, this is of poor animation quality. A proper depiction of "mad scientist" would be Dr. Jeckyll or the scientist in Frankenstein. Not a low-quality cartoon. And isnt that image a Microsoft Word Clipart???

Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
delist!--Vircabutar 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- comment i can't believe how this image could be a FP after all the overqualified picture we turned down; very un-encyclopedic!!!
Keep. What makes you say it's "poor animation quality"? It's not even an animation, it's a still image, and it's a very good one. —Keenan Pepper 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Image:Piratey, vector version.svg and Image:Villianc.svg should remain featured images as well. —Keenan Pepper 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep It is a very good depiction of a mad scientist. I see no problem with quality. --liquidGhoul 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Per above. --Fir0002 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Delist. It doesn't fit "be Wikipedia's best work," IMO. -- moondigger 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. To Keenan Pepper, you cannot choose in one photograph to not scrutinize the medium or the subject and in another not even pay attention to the medium. Everyone must pay close attention to the medium of the mad scientist image, it is an image you see in a cheap powerpoint display, cheesy, and not one of Wikipedia's best. To LiquidGhoul, Dr. Jekyll is a good depiction of a mad scientist, not a cartoon with a bigger set of teeth than most sharks. But if consenus wishes to keep the image, then I fully expect those who voted Keep, to Support images of the same quality in FP nominations... Thanks. AJ24 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any specific, technical criticisms of this drawing, or just vague insults like "cheesy"? You said "low quality", but I'm not sure what that means. For a photo that would make me think resolution, but this is a vector image, so the resolution is unlimited. —Keenan Pepper 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a vague idea of what insult means. To the point, the illustration is low quality in terms of depiction. I also thoroughly read the article and the introductory paragraphs caught my attention, the focus was entirely on cartoons of recent years. Dr. Jekyll and Victor Frankenstein, iconoclasts of mad scientists, are footnotes in the article, and neither in any version of media appeared to be like the cheesy illustration in the article. Not only does it not represent the term Mad Scientist as it is most famous for, but the image itself is insignificant and most certainly unencyclopedic. On another note, I ask you to browse the Featured Pictures listings and see how great the majority of the images are, and compare it to this one. -- AJ24 13:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Change your tune pretty quick don't you? "going through some of the FP listings I see some pictures with poor quality and no significance" --Fir0002 05:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Delist unencyclopedic. -- Samir धर्म 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's a very good illustration of a mad scientist and I don't see any quality issues with it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A very good image of an iconic subject. Quality (svg) is excellent. I see no reson at all for nominating for delisting. To AJ24: You need to study the history of the images better: This is not MS clipart, it was made by a wikipedian, and is highly appreciated by many - see and read the image description page, numerous users have it on their user pages. --Janke | Talk 05:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral not that excited by the image, but it really does illustrate mad scientist well. Something about his evil regard doesn't quite gel with me though. This character just looks raving mad, rather than intelligent but eccentric. *shrug* Stevage 19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Ric36 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Obviously. What's low quality about it? It's an svg, so it can be made to be 10,000 pixels wide if you want. Read Scalable Vector Graphics. It's a generic stereotype of a mad scientist, perfect for a general article about mad scientists. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:13
Keep... it's some of our best SVG caricature stuff... I don't like the picture but it still seems to be the best work in its own category. gren グレン 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Delist - I hate these FP's... It just is not an amazing picture. I also want to get rid of the stupid clip art "pirate" and "villain"... Viva La V i e Boheme 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- User has 8 edits outside user page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:59
  - Brian, just so you ought to know, I have been editing Wikipedia for a LONG time. You cannot judge from my edits. I did a lot of work under just my IP, and I had a user name a long time ago, however, I forgot the password. I recently picked up three years later, and I just recently created an account. So stop judging me! 10 edits or 10000 edits, my opinion is valid. I also had two successful FP's on the old account. Viva La V i e Boheme 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    - It is common practice here, on RFA, on AFD, etc, to alert users when a brand new account is placing a lot of votes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-21 02:51
Keep. Good stereotypical depiction of a mad scientist that isn't "clouded" by preconceptions that we'd have if it were an "actual" mad scientist, like Frankenstein or Jeckyll. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Dante. Jono (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Delist this and any other image that perpetuates invalid and derogatory stereotypes. This rubbish does not belong as a FP. --jjron 09:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Very good depiction. Given that the subject matter - the mad scientist stock character - is fiction, I fail to see how this perpetuates harmful stereotypes. --Kizor 14:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Agreed, there is no "invalid" or "derogatory stereotype" here. This is a sterotypical rendition of a FICTIONAL literary device. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So obviously you two have done substantial reading into the psychological literature on the formation of children's attitudes to science and beliefs about scientists? Views that are shaped by images such as this. And I assume you would also support a FICTIONAL cartoon character depicting a stock racial stereotype - because after all, it would just be fictional, so couldn't cause any harm! You may argue this belongs in an encyclopedia, as some other offensive images do, but it certainly does not need to be a FP. Delist. --jjron 09:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Delist. I have always thought that this one is utterly useless and ridiculous as a featured picture. mstroeck 04:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Delist. Ack mstroeck. Doesn't help to promote the image of a serious credible encyclopedia to feature a pic like this. --Dschwen 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the "serious credible encyclopedia" Encyclopædia Britannica Online doesn't even HAVE an article on 'mad scientist'. I'd say we're already way ahead of the game. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Kizor and Stock character. -Seidenstud 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Delist I don't think this meets the minimum requirement for image size. Also, even if it does illustrate what it's supposed to illustrate, there's not way this is one of wikipedia's best images. When I look at FP images, I look for photograpic masterpieces, not cheesy clip art.--Joniscool98 15:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- SVG : Scalable Vector Graphic I don't think a size requirement has any sense with vector graphics. Ericd 17:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. Featured Pics should be more than just photographs. howch e ng {chat} 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Delist per above. Not very encyclopedic. —Aiden 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep There is no need to be boring to become serious and credible. Ericd 17:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained. 10 Delist, 1 Neutral, 15 Keep --Fir0002 10:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

anhducwiki7

Sunday, February 20, 2022