Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Balistapus undulatus (Nausicaä).jpg

Balistapus undulatus
Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 15:48:11 (UTC)
 * Reason:I think this is one of the best fish images we have - perfect encyclopaedic composition, good technicals.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Orange-lined triggerfish, List of marine aquarium fish species
 * FP category for this image:Animals/Fish
 * Creator:Hans Hillewaert (photograph), Papa Lima Whiskey (edit)


 * Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Looks almost like the Humuhumunukunukuapua'a! --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Twilight chill  t   09:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is pretty soft. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks crisp enough to me even at 1200, but it will tolerate a minor sharpening if that's what it takes to convince you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't crisp at all at 1667 wide. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's water which makes the image soft. Twilight chill  t   11:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And all fish are covered in mucus. I remember the problems we used to have with promoting pictures of molluscs, especially terrestrial, because they're soft-tissued and mucus-covered. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Noodle snacks. Jó Kritika (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Judged at 1000 pixels in the larger dimension, this is a perfectly sharp image, and that's what the criteria stipulate. Extra pixels are a bonus and could never be a valid reason for a nomination not succeeding. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true. That's a lower limit; something could still be larger but not big enough, if the subject matter demands a large image. For instance, we would be unlikely to promote a 1000/1000 square satellite image. It's entirely possible this is too noisy at larger res, too small at smaller res. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this relevant to this nomination? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It could well be, no opinion from me at this time. I'm just pointing out that you can't argue that it looks fine at 1000px, and so everything is completely ok. Your assertion that "extra pixels ... could never be a valid reason for a nomination not succeeding" is just plain wrong. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're completely making that up. There is absolutely nothing in the criteria that I can see that could be interpreted in that way. This is not a panorama. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. The criteria state that images must be "among Wikipedia's best work", must be "of a high technical standard", and, obviously, it must have significant EV. We could oppose on any one of these grounds ("this is nowhere near the standard we expect for this kind of photo", "a technically strong photo of this subject would be larger", "major details are omitted/I can't see x as well as I would like to") because the image is too small, even if it happens to be over the (rather low) 1000 px line in the sand. You can't pooh-pooh any oppose on size grounds just because the image happens to be 1000px. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose although it has good composition and colours, it is too soft! Even at 1000 px as Papa Lima Whiskey showed, I can still clearly see that the nose of the fish, its belly, and so forth, are blurry to something like two or three pixels in radius. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see some very fine lines there, which would suggest you're wrong. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm gunna support it. Sure the res is not mindblowing, but it's an underwater aquarium shot, and the background, composition and colours are spot on. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Fantastic shot, in my opinion -- mcshadypl T C  05:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Jess talk&#124;edits 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: I think it's acceptably sharp and agree with Aaadddaaammm.  Mae din\ talk 07:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Though, it isn't an underwater shot, but an aquarium one. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have clarified, sorry, I wasn't referring to that part of his statement.  Mae din\ talk 08:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)