Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Velodona togata

Velodona togata
Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2010 at 10:39:43 (UTC)
 * Reason:A strong illustration from a reliable source, gently restored.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Velodona
 * FP category for this image:Molluscs
 * Creator:Rübsamen, cleaned by Citron


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Creator probably Ewald Rübsamen? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My limited German is telling me that it probably is. He worked at the museum mentioned on the page the image was taken from. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support OpposeA high technical standard, but a low encyclopedic value. Gut Monk
 * It illustrates the genus article as the lead image? We've promoted many other images on the same grounds? No really seeing this? J Milburn (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, paradoxically, I opposed it for its low article content. But I like the lead-in logic .  I support for this reason. Gut Monk (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 *  Comment mild support I'm not too happy with this, it has image noise, but I do think it has EV and not just to mollusks or that particular type of octopus. Sadly it seems a rightful topic is missing, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article about scientific illustration or general biological illustrations, we only have botanical, medical and technical. I think if both the noise in this were removed and an article started for this subject that then it should be supported for possible nomination. I've requested those articles and might work on them later myself. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the article on the genus not enough? J Milburn (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently not for Gut Monk =\ but I still do think we should get those articles on Wikipedia, and we have featured other biological illustrations, that one I don't believe was ever the lead photo of any page, even pages with whole galleries, but I guess that's another issue. My only real problem with this image is the slight fuzziness, but other than that I must disagree that it shouldn't be considered for feature. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as cleaner--Citron (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. It does not have image noise: This is a lithograph, and lithographs are created by using acid to etch plates, the etching creating pits in which the ink can gather. These pits are randomly placed, but the amount of them in an area is determined by the length of time you etch. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You made me do this: This reveals poor scan quality, I'll admit it's probably better than what I could do, but it seems it was scanned in too small of a resolution for its size. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on the technicalities as well as Adam, but the image is huge. If we were to downsize, the apparent blur would vanish. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I confirm what J Milburn said. This image is henceforth featured on commons, I had no comment on the noise.--Citron (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support -- George Chernilevsky  talk 17:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

--I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)