Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hawaii turtle 2.jpg

Green sea turtle

 * Reason:Very good image of a green sea turtle in its natural habitat.
 * Articles this image appears in:Green sea turtle
 * Creator:Mila Zinkova


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Bewareofdog 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I remember this one from the Commons. I should mention that there were peoples' legs in the background that have been edited out, but I don't think that's too big of a concern. As an aside, how does one take good digital pictures underwater?--HereToHelp 00:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Very clear and well lit. Here to help, you take a look at the camera model? Shockingly, its a 2 MP low end point and shoot. I am stuned by the color quality and lack of compresion. There are some aberrations but its hard to say if they are a result of it being a water shot or poor lens quality. Regardless, more proof that the camera doesn't make the picture. -Fcb981 04:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--HereToHelp 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, no need to weaken it. A 2 mpx camera can give good magazine-quality images (I've had some of my 2 mpx shots published full-page) - here it is the nice composition and the translucent lighting that determine my vote. I don't oppose of the removing of a couple of swimmer's legs (see both versions at Commons FP), but if there's going to be a heated leg discussion, I'd support either version. --Janke | Talk 11:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I only weakened it for what look like aberrations on edges and a bit more grainyness than I like in the shadows. keep in mind that weak support is a positive vote showing that I want it featured but am not totaly vested in it doing so. -Fcb981 14:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have said "no need for me to weaken it"... ;-) Some aberrations are unavoidable in underwater shooting, unless you have an underwater camera with a dome port - hardly available for 2 mpx digital PS cameras... --Janke | Talk 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Very colorful, good quality. -- St.daniel Talk 11:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, that's pretty. Looks good. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 16:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Minor quality issues, but overall it's a great shot. -- Tewy  21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, really nice shot, I wish we had more good under water pics.Chris H 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Just curious-- is this an aquarium shot, or an underwater camera shot? Spikebrennan 03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably underwater, since it's unlikely people would be standing in an aquarium. Chick Bowen 03:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I really don't care about the legs, so either pic if someone really objects to editing them out. Very unique and encyclopedic pic...I don't see many underwater pics on WP.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 06:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Nice framing and lovely colors coem together very well here. Circeus 13:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Good moment captured of the turtle's motion. Has a good range of colours for an underwater shot. Aye Carumba Fajita Pizza 14:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -The image is great most notably for being an underwater shot. - 凶 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, As per 1 (3) 'distracting elements'. It probably does not matter what I say since so many have shown their strong support, but I think the background is VERY disturbing, just because underwater pictures are rare and hard to take should not make us promote sub standard pictures. See  and  for much better compositions. One rule in underwater photograpy is to point the camera upwards (sure all rules are supposed to be broken, but not this one in this case). Stefan 00:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have to disagree re. camera angle. Pointing the lens upwards would lose the highly enc habitat & surroundings, perhaps the main reason I voted for this picture. --Janke | Talk 11:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you want a wide angle reef picture, not a picture of a turtle. Stefan 00:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Pic looks good for FP. Kalyan 09:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support In my opinion an exquisite photograph; good composition too. Chris Buttigiegtalk 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Great image. —dima/talk/ 23:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If it is edited, declare what has been done and point to the original (done now). And I cannot chime in to the chant of the marvelous image quality. Sorry, all sympathy for the 2MP underdog aside, the quality is pretty bad and leaves a lot to wish for. --Dschwen 08:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose What are the blown out pink speckles? I think this is an example of an encyclopedic, excellent image for illustration purposes that shouldn't be featured because it simply isn't clear, perfect, and "wow" at full size.  The 800 * 600 preview I see on the image page makes this image look pretty darn good, and it just kills the taxobox in the most awesome way; bravo to the photographer, this image is a wonderful contribution to the encyclopedia.  However, featured pictures should be impressive at full resolution, and this shot isn't going to be impressive with any side at 1000 pixels.  Personally, I do like the composition, as in my experience, sea turtles swim quickly away from the camera, not toward it, and spend more time in deeper water farther away from the bottom.  This turtle is coming to say "hi" to the photographer, and is posing is just the most perfect way.  This doesn't excuse the technical problems, though.  Enuja 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting oppose.svg|15px]] Strong Oppose – Not like this vote matters but this picture is technically very poor, and it is easy enough to reproduce that its these issues cannot be overlooked.  C e n t y   16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is "easy enough to reproduce"? I'm not sure I understood what you're talking about. Mbz1 18:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It means the green turtle is not extinct and a better quality photo of the same subject can be taken.  C e n t y  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. The turtles are still around and one could hardly argue that "better quality photo of the same subject can be taken". Mbz1 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * I think you just contradicted yourself. And if I may add, green sea turtles aren't exactly common, either. -- Tewy  20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tewy.If you mean that I'm contradicted myself, it is not exactly right. After all I'm the one, who took the picture and I'm really happy with it. Thank you for your support of the picture. Yet I hope that everybody would agree with such a thoughtful conclusion by user Centy that "better quality photo of the same subject can be taken".
 * I meant that in your last comment, you said one could hardly argue, where I think you meant to say one could easily  argue, assuming you agree with Centy --  Mbz1  21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1 
 * Support, It is a beautiful, very sharp and clear underwater picture. It shows the subect (turtle) very well. It also shows rare live corals with different colors. By looking at background one could clearly see that the picture was taken in wild ocean and not in an aquarium. The picture looks great in any resolution. Mbz1 05:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * My point is the picture is technically very poor (blurry edges, grainy at full size which isn't that big etc.) and just because its underwater, these points cannot just be disregarded as if it were a historically important picture or one which is hard to reproduce. This picture is simply not FP standard, that's why I strongly oppose.  C e n t y  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

mikaultalk 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) MER-C 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The pic might not the best Criterion #1 standard candidate I've ever seen, granted, but it fits pretty much every other criterion perfectly well. Ultimately, those criteria are just guidelines. If people like a pic and it does its job well, I for one will put my ruler and pencil away and just sit back and enjoy it. Support!