Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Moon jelly - adult (rev2).jpg

Aurelia aurita

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 00:00:09 (UTC)

Original - Aurelia aurita ("moon jelly", "moon jellyfish", "common jellyfish", "saucer jelly") is one of a group of more than ten morphologically nearly identical jellyfish species in the genus Aurelia. In general, it is nearly impossible to identify Aurelia medusae without genetic sampling. The medusa is translucent, usually about 25-40 cm across, and can be recognized by its four horseshoe-shaped gonads that are easily seen through the top of the bell. It feeds by collecting medusae, plankton and mollusks with its nematocyst-laden tentacles and bringing the prey into its body for digestion, but is capable of only limited motion; like other jellies it primarily drifts with the current even when it is swimming.

Alt - denoised background.

Reason: This is highly educational because you can see the internal organs, and the teensy angelic threads at the back (stinging as they may be) are a brilliant finishing touch. Crystal sharp and just about sufficient resolution.
Articles in which this image appears: Aurelia aurita, Aurelia (genus), Radiata, Jellyfish, Loggerhead sea turtle, Vermes in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae
FP category for this image: Animals/Cnidaria
Creator: Dante Alighieri

Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very beautiful and technically good. Well-used in the articles and best image we have of the species (best of family, even). Maedin\^talk 17:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per above. A quick Google search also reveals that there are few (if any) moon jelly pictures of equivalent quality on the internet. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not the best picture ever, but it's worthy of being a FP. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 04:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I saw this animal in wild some times. Very good photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality of aqurium shot.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Below the quality bar imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty in thumbnail, but poor quality. --Avenue (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What issues are there with the quality? It seems fine to me, could the opposers please describe/qualify? If it looks soft/blurry like jelly, that's because it's a jellyfish. The transluceny, organs, gelatinous appearance, and the fine fringe are captured well, imo. Maedin\^talk 15:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like the plane of focus should be on the front of the jellyfish rather than the tentacles at the back. The subjective result is that it looks out of focus. The photographer also could have stopped down and used flash to get the whole thing sharp. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not vote but I think an image more from the side would be better in terms of EV. Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6/3 right now. Let's wait for responses to Maedin's question. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makeemlighter, why have you said that this requires additional input? 6/3 is a promotion. Maedin\^talk 08:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because if those are legit opposes, this should not be promoted. +6-3 is borderline ("If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.") but tends to fail. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to get into legitimacy, it seems Mbz1 will oppose anything taken in an aquarium, even if it derives its EV from being an aquarium shot. Noodle snacks and Avenue make a strong argument- if this is worthy of FP, it is only just. J Milburn (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to several points:

a) one being that Avenue hasn't made an argument at all—a vague reference to "quality" is all we have and is left entirely unsubstantiated. (Ditto Mbz1's.)
b) Secondly, no one has yet, in fact, said how this lacks in quality. Noodle's response, while I appreciate his explanation, only addresses technique and how it could have been improved. The flash suggestion seems off to me, anyway, as anything but a professional set-up would result in just a huge reflection bouncing off the glass.

You wouldn't get such a reflection if you put the lens up against the glass surface. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

c) To Makeemlighter, this makes it clear that 6-3 is considered by the community to be a promotion, so I'm not sure where you got "tends to fail". In any case, I don't see any evidence that the three opposes have more legitimacy than the six supports. I'm concerned by the MER-C-esque approach to this closure, which, as we know, often gave most of us an unhappy and disgruntled time. Maedin\^talk 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to clarify, my "poor quality" comment referred partly to the 4-5 black patches (dust spots?) visible in the background above and right of the jellyfish, but more importantly to the noise, particularly as it affects many of the trailing threads on the sides. --Avenue (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, a retouched version should be made! Noise reduction in mostly uniform dark blue and removal of black patches should be easy enough. Purpy Pupple (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The black patches would be easy to fix, yes, but the noise is not just in uniform areas. It makes many threads on the sides fade in and out of visibility along their length, or merge with adjacent ones. These would not be at all easy to fix IMO, hence my oppose !vote. I would be more generous regarding noise if the image was a good size, but this is pretty small. --Avenue (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, I denoised the background but the tentacles are harder to fix, and denoising would lose data. I just got my new IPS monitor today and I have to say, upon closer inspection, the background is really a mess! Not only were there black splotches, there are also random white spots - I cleaned up all of those. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work. But—the jellyfish is in "inhabited" water, so I think the random flecks and spots were appropriate. It now looks like a fake or studio background, uniform and "perfect". This should be a promotion for the original, and the image can then be nominated for delisting or for replacing with the edit, if anyone feels strongly about it. Maedin\^talk 07:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO this is a promote. however, disregarding votes is a risky business and all 3 oppose should be taken into consideration. Reminds me of this --Muhammad(talk) 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding Maedin's earlier point that "If it looks soft/blurry like jelly, that's because it's a jellyfish," I have to agree: the index of refraction of a jellyfish is much closer to water than we are used to, and as such, in some circumstances a distinct interface between the jelly and the water cannot be clearly perceived, leading to the impression of a soft image. Purpy Pupple (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Would Makeemlighter or someone uninvolved please close the nomination now? Two who have opposed have made explanations which are different from each other and which do not bring up anything to prevent this from being promoted. It was a promotion to begin with and remains so. Maedin\^talk 07:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Moon jelly - adult (rev2).jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 17:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]