Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oscar

Astronotus ocellatus

 * Reason:High resolution, quality image, striking DOF use.
 * Articles this image appears in:Astronotus ocellatus
 * Creator:Jón Helgi Jónsson (Amything)
 * Nominator: Cody.Pope

Support Excellent image sharpness and lighting --Fir0002 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Cody.Pope 05:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Wow. -- BlastOButter42 See  Hear  Speak  07:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice picture; striking. What a cute oscar -- Havocrazy 09:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose Great quality, but enc is seriously hurt by this being just a fish head... --Janke | Talk 09:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think that being only a head really hurts the enc relevance. We have FP of human heads and also of flowers (instead of the whole plants). This one is scaring! - Alvesgaspar 12:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Good find! I don't think the head only is a problem either. | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 13:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - good image for what is present, but over half the fish is cut off, ruining the encyclopaedic value - Jack · talk · 19:27, Thursday, 1 February 2007
 * Support Magic! Two points: we don't always need the entire object visible if what's seen is enc, and it's not a "fish head", lots of the body is seen Adrian Pingstone 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Subject cut off. -- Tewy  22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Consistent with my peacock votes, I oppose on the basis that the subject is cut off.  I also see dust and some blurring. Pstuart84 Talk 00:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support A great image, and there's no law that we have to see the whole subject. 100% of our presidential portraits are "cut off", too. :) --TotoBaggins 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * However, for enc, it is a good rule to capture as much of the subject as possible, as some distinguishing or important features might otherwise be lost. You're right about the portraits, because cropping from the waist up helps the composition. But in the case of this image, of an animal, it would be nice to see the rest of the fish (for me at least). -- Tewy  04:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is already a featured picture.  It should be removed. -Midnight Rider 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only featured on Commons. -- Tewy  04:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, amazing. Jorcoga  ( Hi! / Review ) 00:33, Saturday, 3 February '07
 * Support Impressive lighting and "you are there" 3D depth. It made me stop scrolling and click on the picture. Eerie, ethereal quality to it. This is a darn good picture! Greg L 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I completely agree with the above, just excelent quality. ~ Arjun  13:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - the fade to black addresses the cut-off detraction, and I believe a photo of a fish head can still be highly illustrative of a species. I think it should be downsampled a bit though - it seems a tad bit pixelated at full res. Debivort 21:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have a problem with downsampling it; it is huge. I'm not at my regular computer though, so someone else will have to take a shot at it.  --Cody.Pope 06:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

' Wii  Willie  Wiki  →''(Talk) (Contrib) 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Beautiful image, and extremely detailed. Excellent quality, and fair use. Dkkicks 01:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Striking image, large size and as said before excellent quality *Greg* 02:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Very nice picture. (That is one scary looking fish!)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)