Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Epibulus insidiator

Epibulus insidiator, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2023 at 11:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

• 
  Male sling-jaw wrasse
• 
  Female sling-jaw wrasse

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Labridae_(Wrasses)
•  Info Male and female sling-jaw wrasse (Epibulus insidiator), Red Sea, Egypt. The most notable feature of the sling-jaw wrasse is that the mouth of this species is armed with highly protrusible jaws which unfold into a tube which is easily half its head length. The males of this species are greyish-brown with orange on the back, a yellowish transverse bar on the flank and a pale grey head which is marked with a thin black stripe running through the eye. The females can be either bright yellow or dark brown. The slingjaw wrasse is found in a wide area of the Indo-Pacific region from the eastern coast of Africa, Madagascar and the Red Sea through the Indian Ocean coasts and islands into the Pacific. Note: we have no FPs of the genus Epibulus. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
•  Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Set rule: A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal. Detail of the mouth doesn't fall in this line. -- Ivar (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Ok, no problem, I removed that one from the set and will probably propose it later on individually Poco a poco (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Question are there any details on the dark part of the male on the raw file? Imo it should look more like this or this. Probable cause of losing details on the dark area is postprocessing: Contrast +38 and ParametricDarks +41. -- Ivar (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry Ivar, I cannot check that in the coming days, Poco a poco (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment They must be to scale - is the female larger, please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Charlesjsharp: are you suggesting that I should have a more generous crop of the female image so that at thumbnail both, male and female, seem to have the same size? That would modify the composition and the next one could reject because they don't consider it a FP anymore as standalone (too much uninteresing area around the fish). Tricky. Poco a poco (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what I think would work. The problem is that some males/female animals are different sizes. I hope that wouldn't cause an objection. The lack of detail on the male is still to bee addressed. I would oppose if the criss/cross pattern cannot be recovered. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose beautiful fish, but final postprocessing result is imo not good. Male has lost some of the details on the dark part and female has notable noise level on the body. -- Ivar (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

•  I withdraw my nomination Ok, thank you for your feedback, I may try it again of one of this guys Poco a poco (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)