In this article we are going to address the topic of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Balistapus undulatus (Nausicaä).jpg, which has generated great interest today. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Balistapus undulatus (Nausicaä).jpg is a topic that impacts people of all ages and backgrounds, since its relevance transcends cultural and geographical barriers. It is important to understand the importance of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Balistapus undulatus (Nausicaä).jpg in our current society and how it can influence various aspects of our lives. Throughout this article, we will explore the different aspects and perspectives related to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Balistapus undulatus (Nausicaä).jpg, with the aim of offering a complete and objective analysis of this very relevant topic.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 15:48:11 (UTC)
Original - The Orange-lined, Orange-striped or Undulated Triggerfish is up to 30cm long, feeds on coral, crabs and invertebrates, and is found up to 50m deep in Indo-Pacific tropical seas.
Reason
I think this is one of the best fish images we have - perfect encyclopaedic composition, good technicals.
And all fish are covered in mucus. I remember the problems we used to have with promoting pictures of molluscs, especially terrestrial, because they're soft-tissued and mucus-covered. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Not true. That's a lower limit; something could still be larger but not big enough, if the subject matter demands a large image. For instance, we would be unlikely to promote a 1000/1000 square satellite image. It's entirely possible this is too noisy at larger res, too small at smaller res. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It could well be, no opinion from me at this time. I'm just pointing out that you can't argue that it looks fine at 1000px, and so everything is completely ok. Your assertion that "extra pixels ... could never be a valid reason for a nomination not succeeding" is just plain wrong. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You're completely making that up. There is absolutely nothing in the criteria that I can see that could be interpreted in that way. This is not a panorama. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Bollocks. The criteria state that images must be "among Wikipedia's best work", must be "of a high technical standard", and, obviously, it must have significant EV. We could oppose on any one of these grounds ("this is nowhere near the standard we expect for this kind of photo", "a technically strong photo of this subject would be larger", "major details are omitted/I can't see x as well as I would like to") because the image is too small, even if it happens to be over the (rather low) 1000 px line in the sand. You can't pooh-pooh any oppose on size grounds just because the image happens to be 1000px. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose although it has good composition and colours, it is too soft! Even at 1000 px as Papa Lima Whiskey showed, I can still clearly see that the nose of the fish, its belly, and so forth, are blurry to something like two or three pixels in radius. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm gunna support it. Sure the res is not mindblowing, but it's an underwater aquarium shot, and the background, composition and colours are spot on. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&sq=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Balistapus_undulatus_(Nausicaä).jpg&lang=en&file=File:Balistapus_undulatus_(Nausica%C3%A4).jpg)