Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cymbiola nobilis

Cymbiola nobilis
Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2010 at 11:43:17 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality shot, very informative, very encyclopedic.
 * Articles in which this image appears:''Cymbiola nobilis
 * FP category for this image:Molluscs
 * Creator:H. Zell


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sure I like the horrible reflection on the centre shell. Also a fair bit of noise on the inside of the bottom right shell. I see it's strong informative format and overall like the shot as an idea, just not yet convinced on the technicalities. Jfitch (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC) - Changed from Comment To Oppose after considering for more time. That reflections is just too horrible. Jfitch (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I notice what Jfitch said about the bottom right shell, but I think the quality of them all overall is feature-quality. Should this be in molluscs when there's no living animal in these? --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, should be in molluscs. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, sorry. This picture doesn't seem to stand out at all to me, I don't see any technical value. -- Jack ?! 18:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you mean that? The photo quality of most of the shells in this is literally better than most images on Wiki, and I guess the black background and arraignment is for an orderly aesthetic and to show off various angles of the same shell. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to support. Sorry, for some reason the image seemed to load strangely on the other PC I used, if not strangely then at least differently. I'm not completely sure what happened, but on reviewing this image on a different screen, I support. -- Jack ?! 22:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very Support Good EV.  If I wanted to identify a shell, then I would look for a picture like this. Gut Monk (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Probably an ideal technical photograph of a shell for an article, would love to see LOTS more of this style and quality for many more shellfish articles. — raeky  T  00:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments below were added after the voting had ended.
 * Support Good EV and great quality.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support  Wacky Wace  you talkin' to me? 19:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It's a beautiful image with strong EV due to the various positions of the shell. Very nice. --AutoGyro (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Harsh reflections and blown highlights, noise in parts, artifacts in others. This could definitely be re-shot for better quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Judging by (most of) the other comments, nobody else noticed that. I guess I shouldn't have waited until there were < 2 hours left to look at this full-size. Oops!! Makeemlighter (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. I fear a lot of people have supported this without once viewing it at 100% A much better image could be taken, without all the problems this one has. JFitch   (talk)  10:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment it's too late now, but I tried to fix the glare. See edit...--AutoGyro (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you could open a delist/replace nom, I suppose. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't check, but it certainly looks like the blown highlights are worse in the edit. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  talk 15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)