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
-
Right valve
-
Left valve
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Arcidae
- Info This species has the common name "Burnt-almond Ark", the same is for the scientific name: amygdalum = almond, tostum = burnt, the species was originally placed in the genus Arca = Ark; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support Impressive work as usual. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Certainly a VI, but I don't find this shape special for FP. Or maybe that's because we've had hundreds of similar nominations before, that one looks a bit boring in comparison -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Could you please give at least some links to the "hundreds of similar nominations before" as FPs, for I didn't find them --Llez (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
-
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak support Looks great, as usual, but I kind of agree with Basile, I also feel some kind of tiredness about shells, specially if their shape is kind of boring Poco a poco (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is a beautiful shell to me, not so ordinary. Obviously, people can differ on that, and it's not as spectacular as some. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Like Basile. Also, I see here lots of incredibles photos of moving subjects taken in the wild which use better settings (not such a narrow aperture, stack focusing and all) and as a result are sharper than this. I'm not sure why we are this complacent with these shells, which surely are interesting, but not from a photographic point of view IMO. - Benh (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family : Arcidae