Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Entacmaea quadricolor (Bubble tip anemone).jpg

Entacmaea quadricolor
Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2010 at 09:17:33 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is simply one of the most impressive wildlife images we have, imo.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Bubble-tip anemone
 * FP category for this image:Animals/Others
 * Creator:Nick Hobgood

*Oppose Per PP, if it's technically incorrect then it has no value as a FP. Cat-five - talk 04:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, naturally :) Twilight chill  t   10:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Wonderful! Nice lighting and good EV. Makes me want to reach out and touch it. – S Masters (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support eyecatching.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support bubbly. Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It might be better if there was a clownfish or two, but excellent nonetheless! Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does not show whole organism, misleads the viewer into thinking each one of the tentacle shapes is a different organism. A gorgeous image, but something like this is much better. If this were not used as the lead image and were helpful to point out something interesting about the tentacles that would be one thing, but as it is there is minimal EV here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it may mislead the viewer into thinking each of the tentacles is a different organism, but this can be mostly resolved in the caption. The EV is not bad, since there is much more detail that can be seen than would be possible in a photo of the entire organism. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with PP. Nergaal (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They're colonial, so delineating one individual from another is not as trivial as one usually expects. The fact that little seems to be known about the tentacles is nothing to do with the photograph, and I think we should give little-known subjects just as much of a chance as those where a lot is already understood. The lighting on the pink specimen that you've put forward strongly suggests an aquarium setting, and the structure of the bulbs seems different from all the examples that were more demonstrably taken in the wild, which makes me concerned that your alternative may not be a good illustration of the species. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it's "technically incorrect", because I don't find that reflected in Purpy pupple's comments. I believe the photograph is a faithful representation of the specimen that was before the camera. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It could still be a faithful representation and misleading. I admit I got the same impression- that each seperate appendage was a separate organism. J Milburn (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The caption now in the article would seem to clarify that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I withdraw my opposition. The caption is now a bit wordy but since it has to be to be accurate it would be unfair to criticize the nomination for that. Technically this is a very good shot and with the clarification it has very good EV. Cat-five - talk 00:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Good. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Avenue (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support nice -- Extra   999  (Contact me  +  contribs) 13:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)