Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spatangus purpureus

Spatangus purpureus
Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2010 at 22:56:56 (UTC)
 * Reason:High resolution, high quality image with clear EV (even more so than the usual "pic of a species in a genus article", as this is the genus's type species) identified and contributed by an expert. Severely underrepresented category- we don't have a single Echinoderm (starfish, sea urchins etc) FP. Does this have the umph? Certainly caught my eye :)
 * Articles in which this image appears:Spatangus, Spatangidae
 * FP category for this image:Animals/Others
 * Creator:Hans Hillewaert


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional support Looking at the overall effect on the eye and looking at the histogram, there is plenty of room to brighten this without blowing out anything at all. And I think this could be cropped a tad tighter; the black adds nothing here. But I like this because it is an odd-looking thing that many people simply haven’t seen. Thus, I think it would be a fabulous addition to the Main Page for one day at a venue dedicated to learning. Greg L (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support But perhaps a bit dark. Also, Greg, it isn't called POTDC, its called FPC (this is a general comment). Noodle snacks (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What isn’t “called POTDC” and what does that acronym mean? Greg L (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Things that don't fail at FPC would be difficult to oppose for POTD, so it seems that Greg's position is consistent with the facts. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of FPs which deliberately never hit the main page. We should be judging on whether something should be FP, not POTD- being the POTD is, in effect, a side-effect of being an FP, not the be-all and end-all. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I take the exact opposite view. Projects that don't have front page access, like VPC and GAN, have at times floundered, so it's very clear to me that the reason that FPC gets as much attention as it does, is that the material we approve has a chance to be on the main page. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you see FPC as a side-effect of POTD? Sorry, not sure I actually follow what you are saying. J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose This is a very common sea urchin. There's no reason it could not be photographed in a natural environment. Even aquarium's shot would have been better.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly, I don't think studio shots are necessarily any worse than natural shots; the studio shots certainly look encyclopedic. Furthermore, this particular species, I gather, lives in rather deep water, and spends most of its time submerged. Getting a useful "natural" shot of it would be difficult. J Milburn (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it says: "Occurs buried just below the surface of coarse sand or gravel", doesn't look like a very deep water to me. BTW it is a good point too, I mean info about the habitat. No article specifies the habitat, and there's no info about the depth it was found at in the image description.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I see no reason that this shouldn't be promoted. It seems like a good illustration of the subject, which is the urchin, not the habitat. While the habitat could be shown, it would be a completely distinct image (and the article could likely accommodate both. Cowtowner (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support The quality's not bad, but I also might've liked to see it in its habitat. It's a sea urchin, they don't move around much, wouldn't think they could be too hard to photo. Are these the ones that sting when you step on them? -- I'ḏ ♥  One  14:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be some urchins that sting, I don't know- you sure you're not thinking of sea anemones? J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The ones that sting have longer spikes. This one is a burrowing species. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I have problems with the lighting here. It just looks bland. Sorry  Hive001   contact  18:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Only 3.5 supports. Or 4.5 if you consider Greg's conditonal support a support. Either way, that's less than 5. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)