Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Barbatia amygdalumtostum valves

Barbatia amygdalumtostum valves, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2022 at 06:37:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

This is like a building, in my opinion. The fact that this building exists somewhere in the world does not necessary mean its architecture is incredible, and thus automatically an FP. We're here to select the best images in some categories. The building needs to be interesting in itself, special in its kind, having shapes particularly attractive, so that the "wow factor" is there. -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This are Bivalves, most of your links (with the exception of link 1 and 2, the right and the left valve of the same species in a nomination of a set) are gastropods, a completely different group of animals. Please remember: We have more than 80.000 known Mollusc species, why should only 2 or 3 worth to be a FP? If you argue in this way, please have in mind that we have "only" 70.000 vertebrate species (Fishes, Amphibs, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals). Following your arguments it would be enough to have 20 FPs of Vetrebrates. But please count the birds alone, you never opposed a nomination of a bird with this argument. Why not? The same is with the insects. How many butterflies do we have? More than five? I think so. How many landscapes, how many buildings, churches,... and so on. --Llez (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is absolutely wrong to pretend I never opposed a nomination of a bird with this argument. We can dig the archives to exhume these reviews if you want. Pigeons and chickens that were "not special enough" for FP, like this shell, have been declined.
  2. The fact there are 80'000 town halls or theaters somewhere doesn't mean all of them should be promoted at FPC. Only the most interesting ones, IMO. Image guidelines: must have a "wow factor". Valued Images have different requirements, and all of these pictures could find a place there, with a right label. But here we need a bit of emotion.
  3. It would be the same for a fish, a flower, a beetle, a microbe, or anything else: Banal shape = Ordinary subject -- Basile Morin (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family : Arcidae