Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Paradise Fish

Paradise Fish

Reason: Nice colours and quality. has already been a selected picture on the Fish portal
Articles this image appears in: Paradise fish
Creator: André Karwath

Support as nominator Abdominator (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. When I first looked, it seemed that some areas were noisy, but after reviewing the whole picture, I have to conclude that the "noise" is simply the fish's natural, uneven distribution of pigment. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) oppose edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Was based on bad thumbnail that seems to be a caching problem. Looked like destructive editing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support #1 - the other one doesn't show its colours or body very well. But the first is good ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(shout at me)} 15:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit #3 - Changing my support - Support the new one without the leave. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(shout at me)} 09:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be Edit 1, unless you know something about a future 'Edit 3' that we don't? --jjron (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant third version, edit 1. Muhammad(talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you Muhammad. I did of course mean #3, edit 1. And thanks jjron for acting like a fool, sparing me the embarrassment of having slightly incorrectly worded my support. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(shout at me)} 14:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "slightly incorrectly worded" both supports if you want to be picky. My apologies for wanting votes to be correct and clear for the closers. :-) --jjron (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support original Oppose other Original is a nice encyclopedic shot that shows the whole fish and has very few tech problems. Other version has clear DOF issues.D-rew (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original although it would be better with some sense of scale, even if it's just in the caption. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-05-09 18:14Z
Support Original, Oppose Edit 1. As much as I like the second shot, the first is clearly more encyclopedic. NauticaShad es 01:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the work on edit 1, but it is clear there has been some manipulation if you know to look for it. NauticaShad es 03:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support original~~ Great, high quality photo. Plant in the background could be removed, but not a big deal. The alternate doesn't show the fish as well as I'd like. crassic!^[talk] 02:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support original or edit 1 crassic!^[talk] 02:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Original~~ Edit one I really like the high res detail and colour. Is it possible to eliminate the green thing at the bottom? Spencer^T♦^C 18:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed now. Spencer^T♦^C 11:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 the leaf is a distracting element to the original and since it was only a minor element it makes edit 1 a lot clearer with it out of the way. Cat-five - talk 08:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 looks better without the distracting leaf. Muhammad(talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Macropodus opercularis - side (aka) edit.jpg MER-C 06:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]