Review
(criteria) |
 Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 3 (does not illustrate its subject well). The poor quality of the images do not do the fish justice. I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria. -- Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it illustrates the subject well. It is the only image in the category, which really shows why the fish is called leaf fish.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me assume that you know quite well the behavior patterns of leafscorpion fish. So may I please ask to be more specific and to tell me what behavior exactly you cannot recognize? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't know it, and I can't learn it from this image. Nor from its description. It describes nothing. The only link is not about the fish, and links to a disambiguation. The category has no links either. If I finally find the fish in WP, the first I learn is that he's supposed to be yellow. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the responding. I agree I should have linked to some article (I did now), yet IMO rather than to oppose with the words "too, can't recognoze the behaviour", it might have been better to ask first.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for linking. I've taken the liberty to further refine links in the article and the categories. Apart from additional information, I found the quality of the image itself not promising. That's why I immediately opposed. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah I see, now you are OK with behavior, but you do not like the quality? Well, the quality of the image is good enough. The fish pretends to be a leaf, and it what the image shows. IMO it is the most valued image in the category although some other images are of the better quality, but of course you are entailed to your opinion. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 because I am bored with the reviews--Mbz1 (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I don't see how an image like this can be declined from VI on quality grounds? This is not QI. Could you really expect to get better quality with a camera phone? --99of9 (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not a camera phone. It was taken with 10 mega pixels Olympus, and the quality is as best as it gets with this camera and the conditions of the taken of the image. IMO this image is the most valued in the category because it shows how the fish got its name "leaf", how it rocks from side to side changing shape and pretending to be a dead leaf. It took me 10 minutes of watching the fish until I realized it was a fish, but whatever ...--Mbz1 (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Valued images are not required to have high quality. They are supposed to be achievable even with a camera phone. In this case, I don't think a camera phone could have done any better than you achieved with your Olympus. Hence I don't think it should be declined based on quality. --99of9 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But then again, I suppose I can see Lyacon's point. If we have other images out there that are of higher quality, then all other things being equal, they are likely to be better illustrative of the subject. --99of9 (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that a better quality image is not always the most valued image. I agree that there are better quality image in the category, maybe much better than mine, but IMO mine image is the most valued because it shows the fish behavior. For this particular fish the behavior is probably the most important characteristic. When I first saw it, it was laying on its side. Then I saw and photographed it moving from side to side, as it was moving by the currents. Even after I realized I was looking at the fish, it took few more minutes to realize it was actually alive, and it is exactly what this fish is about. None of the other images in the category show that kind of behavior. lycaon's oppose cannot spoil the excitement I experienced wile watching this amazing fish :) --Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it certainly sounds like an interesting fish. --99of9 (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this review really closed by withdrawing ? If not, I have to
 Support. Please withdraw your withdrawing ! Sometimes, VIC discussions are hard and oppose opinions are incomprehensible for the nominator (I knew that). I completely agree with Mbz1 in all this debate. The purpose is good, and I clearly understand the nominator's wills and explanations. Quality is good enough for VI, and I don't see other valuable competitors. What's the problem ? Maybe a scope change could be useful ? First, the rule here wants an english identification, if I'm not wrong. Then, the scope could be Taenianotus triacanthus Leaf scorpionfish (behaviour), or something like that, because the purpose is to show the behaviour (camouflage by mimic) more than the animal itself, IMHO. Furthermore, may I say that "acanthus" means "leaf" in ancient greek ?  --Jebulon (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Jebulon! I might renominate the image with a new scope.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Sorry Lycaon, I take the liberty of keeping this nomination open, as the last vote has been made at 10:10, 4 June 2010. Am I wrong? Or should we close it as withdrawn? --Myrabella (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator, status = declined for VICbot processing. --Myrabella (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
