Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fosil de coral (Cunnolites elliptica), Goulmima, Marruecos, 2021-01-15, DD 294-400 FS.jpg

File:Fosil de coral (Cunnolites elliptica), Goulmima, Marruecos, 2021-01-15, DD 294-400 FS.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2021 at 18:50:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Fosil de coral (Cunnolites elliptica), Goulmima, Marruecos, 2021-01-15, DD 294-400 FS.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fosil de coral (Cunnolites elliptica), Goulmima, Marruecos, 2021-01-15, DD 294-400 FS.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Class_:_Anthozoa
•  Info Top and bottom view of a fossil of Cunnolites elliptica found in Goulmima, Morocco. The fossil belongs to the late Cretaceous (aprox. 90 million years old) and has a diameter of 3.7 centimetres (1.5 in) c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment This is crying out for raking light. It isn't a banknote in a photocopier. -- Colin (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  I tried it Colin without a light on the top and looked a bit awkward (the center was too dark) and finally opted for this version. I kind of agree with KoH that your proposal would result in a more artistic version but not as encyclopedic as this one. If you like I can upload a different version with raking light (give me 1-2 days). Btw, you didn't give me feedback about the new coprolite version I included in my last comment. Poco a poco (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Support This neutral lighting is fine for me, it makes a great encyclopedic illustration. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Please add the stratigraphic layer and the size to the file description; as far as I can see this species is now placed again in the genus Cyclolithes by Löser (2009, p. 133) (see the comment of "abyssunder" here), so the correct name is Cyclolites ellipticus Lamarck, 1801, see also the nomenclature of WoRMS. --Llez (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment I'll await the resolution of this and then will support, because it's impressive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Llez, Ikan Kekek: I've updated the description page with the information here (that's something I eventually always do) and also added there and here the age (along with the epoch). Regarding Cyclolites vs Cunnolites I'm a bit confused. As you can see in the file history I actually uploaded it first as Cyclolites (without an "h") ellipticus but then figured out that on Commons the synonym Cunnolites was used, so I renamed it. Should I then rename my file back and all others along with the categories? Poco a poco (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Support As Cunnolites elliptica is a category in commons, it would be a lot of work to create a new category, transfer all pictures and rename the files (I also would not rename a file during a nomination, too). I propose therefore to add in the file description "...a fossil of Cunnolites elliptica ( = Cyclolites ellipticus Lamarck, 1801) found...", I think, this is the easiest way to solve the problem. --Llez (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --StellarHalo (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per KoH. My father used to do product photography for many years. Naturally in product photography the customers often cry for the most striking lighting; but not always: for some kinds of products, especially technical components, we needed to resort to neutral lighting in order to make all features of the product easily recognizable. If even in product photography neutral lighting can be necessary, it is IMHO even more appropriate for encyclopedic illustrations. --Aristeas (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Pierre André ^(talk) 10:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Neutral saw the debate about lighting and I actually tend to agree with Colin and Podzemnik. The lighting is barely OK and maybe too even. The textures should be emphasized better. Don't be afraid to add light sources ;) - Benh (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I agree that the light is a bit bland, but I still find it a very impressive photo. The neutral lighting is appropriate for an encylopedia (per Aristeas). Cmao20 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Class_:_Anthozoa