Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/fish

Menderfish

 * Reason:Crystal clear, you really can't miss on detail about the fish.
 * Articles this image appears in:Mandarinfish
 * Creator:Luc Viatour


 * Support as nominator - Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Wow. Even at full resolution there are no artifacts, and detail is absolutely stunning.  A good image for illustrating the subject. &mdash;  scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 18:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support Stunning colour.  crassic ![ talk ] 18:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support per both above. Dr.   e  X  treme  19:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Striking colour. Lord Foppington (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Love the picture. It's beautiful! ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support' Amazing depiction of the fish, very usful (high encyclopaedic value)for illustrative purposes, although the background is a little distracting. Guest9999 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Uber-Support The detail and color are amazing!  Spinach Dip (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I would be inclined to oppose--but, how much of the fuzziness is a necessary part of the photo being take through water? gren グレン 04:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you ask Gren, here is a somewhat similar shot that I took through glass. The difference is quantifiable I think. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. It is a pretty good shot until you view it full sized. I don't know what everyone else has been seeing, but there are artifacts in the image at full size. It looks like it has been hit with some very strong noise reduction (the background is ultra smooth but the detail on the fish is very muddled and a bit posterised - looks almost watercolourish as a result. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did the fish just happen to be swimming at an angle when the photo was taken?  If the fish's normal orientation is more horizontal, then I would suggest rotating the image.  Spikebrennan (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fish swim like that! It is a normal posture.--Luc Viatour (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Because of poor image quality at full size, and even at 1024 pixels wide. The effect is not from being in water, but I'll defer to Diliff on what the image quality problem is with the fish.  - Enuja (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I reduced the size here and I see no more default on the other image Featured here ?.--Luc Viatour (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...which was featured two years ago.. --Dschwen 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't find the image quality to great, it looks choppy --Hadseys Chat Contribs 21:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Although this image is not technically perfect, it is still a pleasant picture which illustrated the subject very well. Jellocube27 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good. 8thstar 22:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Fantastic image. The most important thing I look for - will the image pique the reader's interest and get them to read the article? In this case, I certainly think so. faithless   (speak)  08:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Fantastic Image, High quality and interisting to look at.--Mifter (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Colourful and encyclopedic. Spencer  T♦C 16:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, looks pretty fantastic to me. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 04:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The green thing above the fish takes the focus away from the fish. May I suggest blurring it out? 154.20.181.98 (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 07:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)