Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anableps anableps (Linnaeus 1758).jpg

File:Anableps anableps (Linnaeus 1758).jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 22:45:13

•  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Info This Four-eyed fish (Anableps anableps) is swimming in streaming water over white and black sand. The streaming water shows colorfully reflection.
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment fish color appears unnatural --ianaré (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Thanks. I brightened the blue colour of the four-eyed fish.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversaturated and deformed (by the water). Ideally should show the eye structure, but that may be too much to ask. Lycaon (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please have a look into the Wikipedia. There you can read: "The four-eyed fishes only have two eyes each, but the eyes are specially adapted for their surface-dwelling lifestyle. The eyes are positioned on the top of the head, and the fish floats at the water surface with only the lower half of each eye underwater. The two halves are divided by a band of tissue and the eye has two pupils, connected by part of the iris. The upper half of the eye is adapted for vision in air, the lower half for vision in water. The lens of the eye also changes in thickness top to bottom to account for the difference in the refractive indices of air versus water." It is impossible to see the complete eye in the file. The eye is devided in two parts: one eye is lying over the water, the other eye is lying under the water. Therefore you can only see the upper eye over the water and under that the reflexion of the water over the deeper eye. You write: "Oversaturated and deformed (by the water). Ideally should show the eye structure, but that may be too much to ask." I think: That's no reason to oppose. But you could not know any better: this is in general the only fish with four eyes. Therefore I made this image. I think, it is interesting, to see this.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, sure, that's second year's stuff. That's why I didn't insist on the eye structure, which would have needed a lens at the water/air interface. My oppose is in the first part of the sentence I wrote. Lycaon (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose, sorry Michael, I don't like your style. All your pictures here are oversaturated. This type of oversexing may be appropriate for flickr, for commons it isn't. --Dschwen (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Dschwen. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose For FP it should be a perfect reference regarding colors. --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Dschwen. —kallerna™ 16:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)