Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Clownfish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Clownfish

I suggest replacing the feature picture in the Clownfish article with this. I have several different clownfish shots, some showing in much greater detail the clownfish but I thought this picture is much more interesting.

More can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/sprain/sets/1141430/

• Nominate and support. - Sprain 07:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Could you include the picture in an article please? That is one of the requirements of a FP. Thanks! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, it was there but I took it out before I posted this. It's there again now. Thanks!! -- Sprain 07:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• It looks like the focus is more on the anemone. You might add this picture to their article as well. --BRIAN0918 13:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Every1blowz edit No vote. I can't decide right now. There are some really nice things about this picture: I think the angle is great, and it illustrates clownfish in their environment very well. Better, in my opinion, than the current featured picture. At the same time, though, the lighting (especially the clownfish's semi-illumination) is not attractive, and the clownfish is fuzzy around the edges. -- bcasterline • talk 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You might also want to upload this shot, which I'd also say is better than the current FP (and almost the same). -- bcasterline • talk 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Poor lighting. It needs cropping to improve the composition. --Pharaoh Hound 17:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support because it's good. Josen 20:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I like the third edit. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 13:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but I think that the overall lighting and visual appeal of the original was far superior. It merely required a slight brightness increase, not a total lighting modification. mcshadypl 22:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean "original"? Are you opposing User:Anonymous_Anonymous's edit (this), or Sprain's original nominee (this)? Or both, in which case by original you mean this? -- bcasterline • talk 00:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • From what I understood, the second posted picture is simply the edited version of the current photo, which is represented by the first image. The person who nominated the photo did not include a link to the original that he claimed was being replaced, apparently. That is what led me to believe that the second photo is the proposed replacement of the first. Sorry about the confusion. I have retracted my vote. mcshadypl 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose edit, Support original nomination, and Support the delisting of the current FP. Sorry, the edit is too bright, smaller, and the colours look a bit synthetic. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Support For a long time I didn't want to vote. Although I liked the image something about the original just didn't rub me the right way so I wasn't going to support it. I finally put some time aside and loaded the image into photoshop to see what I can do with it. There's too many edits to name but, looking back at the original, maybe I got a little too carried away? --Every1blowz 11:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought about it and I have to agree with Stevage on this one. Also, the current clownfish FP needs to be delisted. --Every1blowz 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose but strong preference for Every1blowz's edit. The image just isn't that sharp, and looks like it was shot in a fishtank. I mean, it's an ok image, maybe even "good"...but not "striking" or "Wikipedia's best work". Stevage 12:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Compare this with the clownfish that's up for delisting below, and it starts to look very good... --Janke | Talk 05:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Every1blowz's edit. Per above. --Life is like a box of chocolates 00:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 3 I really like this photograph. Swollib 08:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose — The subject of the photo (the fish) doesn't occupy significant area in the photo. Nice photo, but not very informative about the fish. As far as encyclopedicness is concerned, I find this one better. deeptrivia (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Oppose all edits, Weak oppose original. The edits look overly processed. The original's a bit blurry. k.lee 22:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note. It is a few months after the delisting, but I finally replaced the small original featured 600px image with a 1600x1200 pixel version. Janderk 09:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I love to see a clownfish image featured, this ones colors are way too much saturated and hardly representative. Clowfish are not that red and the surface has too much blue. Plus the main subject should be larger. Janderk 09:52, 4 June 2006 *(UTC)
• Weak oppose. Its a nice pic, but the colors are a bit off and it's lacking encyclopedic value.

Geoffrey Gibson 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)