Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Benthoctopus levis

Benthoctopus levis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2010 at 14:28:15 (UTC)

Original - Benthoctopus levis

Reason
Articles in which this image appears: Benthoctopus levis, Benthoctopus
FP category for this image: animals
Creator: Ewald Rübsamen

Support as nominator --Kozuch (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The EV's minimal, right now. Give me a second. J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There, I've knocked up a quick stub at Benthoctopus levis based on what I could find online. J Milburn (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, two more things- can we have a more accurate source URL, and, secondly, could we have the restoration work documented? I suspect Citron will be happy enough to do that- he has been when I've contacted him in the past :) J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this needs more EV/context to be created for it. Just to single out one issue, it looks blind but I couldn't confirm that this is a blind species. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PLW, I've done what I can to expand the article further. I've managed a good bit more than I thought I would- still nothing about its eyesight, but a good bit more context than merely that the species exists. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first thing that struck me about it was that its ocular region seemed "shut". While I'm no expert on cephalopod eyes, it seems possible that a deep sea animal's eyes would burst upon being brought to surface, and that the representation with damaged (?) eyes is actually an artefact. Like you said, we could be getting it dead wrong, and that should be avoided per criterion 6. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think we can trust that the image is accurate- it comes from a reliable source. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, now it sounds like you're making the claim that the animal *is* blind. Are you? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm claiming that we can trust the image as an accurate visual representation of the species. The image doesn't claim that the animal is blind. I would guess, based on the limited reading I have done, that the animal is not blind, but that's just that- guesswork. I did find this photograph, which, it is claimed, is the same species- the animal does not look blind there. This article may also shed some light on the issue. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, well if we're getting into guesswork, I'm definitely opposing. (The article cited sheds no light on Benthoctopus levis.) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I really don't understand this. What are we guessing? Why are we guessing it? I'm not following your reasoning? Does it matter whether or not the animal is blind? J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It absolutely matters whether the image is accurate or not. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course, but the fact that you think it looks blind and it may or may not be blind doesn't mean it's inaccurate... The image comes from a reliable source, I am going to assume it's accurate unless shown otherwise. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've done what I can for the article, and this is a strong lead image for a subject that you won't see a picture of every day. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There seems to be a lot of scanned illustrations from books that have lapsed into public domain appearing here, but the FP criteria are rather vague on how to access corrections for color fading and paper yellowing. That aside, this seems a very unnaturalistic pose compared with photos of similar species in the wild, though it was probably up to 19th century standards. I'd say that issue alone lowers the EV enough to disqualify it for FP.--RDBury (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The restoration adds not a new licence... see PD-scan licence! --Citron (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Haven't though about EV issues but at least the cut-out job around the octopus is sloppy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Technically good, but not very eye-catching and weird (no eyes)? --I'ḏ ♥One 19:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 18:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]