Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bryaninops yongei

Bryaninops yongei

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2010 at 20:54:55 (UTC)

Reason: Pretty stunning photograph. The coral, as well as being lovely to look at, is more than a little bit relevant, as that's the thing about this genus- in lives in that coral. Already featured on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Bryaninops, Goby
FP category for this image: Fish
Creator: Nick Hobgood

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom’s stated Reason. Greg L (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A fine illustration. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-nominator. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote the article and created the nomination. A day later you decide you're conominator? Ok. In any case, thanks for the support. J Milburn (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a different story to this that I suspect you don't want to talk about, where you tried to suppress discussion of whether this and several other images that I suggested should be nominated, starting on 13 August [1], so I think you'll just have to accept that I take credit for bringing these to your attention. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, you got me, I was terrified people would find out you masterminded the whole thing. I was aware of this image before you pointed it out, I lurk the Commons FPC, as I'm sure you realise. I did not nominate it sooner as it was not positively identified, so lacked EV. When I saw it was, I wrote an article and nominated it. If you really want to be a co-nom, that's fine, but I don't think it really matters. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I was the one to request the id. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - In any case, tried to suppress it? I moved it to the talk page, and continued to discuss it with you until you made a cocky comment implying you wanted to discuss it with others first. No one else replied. There was nothing stopping you nominating this or any of the other images for which you clearly deserve to be listed as nominator- that was weeks ago. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Your last comment stands as but I worry some people won't like the nomination page being flooded - that's in favour, is it? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's me worrying about the pragmatics of your plan. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly oppose Nice capture, but chromatic aberration and it could be sharper. --I'ḏ ♥One 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with IdLoveOne, issues with CA are rather evident and detract from the quality. Spencer^T♦C 03:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is that not to be expected on a picture as large as this? J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria says CA's a no-no, and I agree with that, weird light ghosts are not high quality and it seems to be a common enough problem above or below water and tends to be the fault of the camera, and yes, I know light acts differently underwater. --I'ḏ ♥One 13:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm thinking the CA could be mitigated a great deal by cropping the lower part of the image where it's most evident. This would also center the subject within the frame and all that would be lost are the repetitive bits of the coral.--RDBury (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice subwater scene. CA in water always visible much more. In this case it is tiny defect -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had a look through the author's other work earlier, and most of them are definatley FP-quality—if only they were used in articles. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 13:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's essentially what I was thinking, too. Except for the ones that are ineligible due to size, most of them could be reasonably nominated. Clearly, the availability of eligible pictures is no longer the bottleneck - it's rather down to our ability to process them. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Wirecoral goby.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]