Reason

Because I think it is very informative and has good technical quality.

Proposed caption

Macro of a naturally mummified Seahorse.

Articles this image appears in

Seahorse, Mummy and Traditional Chinese medicine

Creator

Digon3

• Support as nominator Digon3 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Not exactly an interesting image, but I can't argue that it's not basically the most encyclopedic shot of a seahorse possible (unless it was still alive in its natural environment, but that's a bit much to expect from a macro shot). My only real qualm is that portions of the 'cutout' around the seahorse are sloppy- depending on the area, either not enough is cut out or there are aliasing problems. --froth^t 17:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support i agree that this is a nice photo, but I'd prefer a living one in its habitat. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral While seahorses do have bony rings on the outside of their bodies, I believe they do also have internal bones and that this image includes more than just bones (such as the dried eye). I'm not sure exactly what this specimen is, but I wouldn't call it a skeleton. In order for something to contribute to the encyclopedia enough to be a featured picture, I think we need to know more about what this actually is. (I tried to check just off my bookshelf, but my fish books were sadly unilluminating). Also, since I think it's just dehydrated, I miss the distinctive dorsal fin on the back of the fish. As an image, the flaky dried surface with linear highlights is not aesthetically appealing to me, and I don't consider that texture encyclopedic instead of aesthetic because this isn't a living seahorse. Enuja 01:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC) I added a note to the fish project talk page, so hopefully we'll get some illumination on the issue. Enuja 01:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC) I've changed to neutral, because there is more information about this image, making it more encyclopedic. However, the image is very much out of context on the mummy page, as it currently says that natural mummification is rare, and the traditional chinese medicine page says that dried seahorses are common. Enuja 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's technically called a "mummy". It's the same thing as those dried-out starfish. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, yes, as Adam says, this is a natural mummy. The outside of a seahorse is covered with bony scutes similar to those on a boxfish or catfish. The bones are inside and invisible in this shot. I've collected similar things from the Thames estuary, in this case a close relative, the greater pipefish. The salty air extracts the moisture before the cadaver can decompose, so you get what is effectively a natural process of mummification. The arrangement of the bony scutes is interesting, because unlike the situation in, say, armoured catfish, where the scutes are plate-like, these are rings that go around the body. This makes the armour more flexible (compare full-plate armour with something like the Roman lorica segmentata). This is why seahorses can coil their tails around seaweed and other objects. Most other armoured fish are far less flexible. Neale Monks 15:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though with some commentary added: dried seahorses like these are extensively used in traditional 'medicine' in China and elsewhere, and the demand for them drives a major collecting industry. This in turn has endangered populations of seahorses, prompting projects (like Project Seahorse) to study the animals in the wild to find ways to "farm" them. So if the image was going to be used as a Feature, I'd like to see the image used to put dried seahorses into their medical/conservation context, which is significant. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Edit. I have uploaded Edit 1, a sharpened version of the 'Original' picture, which was to me lacking sharpness. --jjron 09:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I must say I share some of Enuja's concerns re skeleton/mummification question, and possibly it should have an exact species identification as well. Neale's comments are pertinent also; this image could be put to further use and up its encyclopaedic value. Switch to full 'Support Edit 1' if these issues are straightened out. --jjron 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It now links to the appropriate places in Mummy and Traditional Chinese medicine and I have changed the description to read mummified. Digon3 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've done a little bit of work on the articles as well to make the image fit more neatly. It would still be nice to get a full species ID, but it's not vital for the way this image is being used, so, as promised, Support Edit 1. --jjron 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 I was sitting on the fence, but the sharpening makes it just good enough.--HereToHelp 14:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. As it now supports the animal product section of Chinese medicine, it now perhaps illustrates its subject better. However, I don't know how well this represents the product that comes from the (over) harvesting of natural populations which are presumably dried in a different manner? And as a natural mummy, the black background seems to decontextualize it too much. So it seems too natural for "Chinese medicine", but too artificial for "mummy".. not to mention too dead for "Seahorse". Still, a good picture of what it is. —Pengo 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 i was neutral but this image has been improved enough to get my vote --₵hildzÿ Δ Tãlk 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1 to be honest i'd have supported the original to. Good encylopedic quality and can link into several articles. Black background is a nice touch, usually these go on white which makes it harder to pick out the detail in my opinion. Will go nicely on the front page. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Seahorse Skeleton Macro 8 - edit.jpg MER-C 09:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]