It is more detailed indeed as it is a close-up, but it does not display the general shape of the animal, and it shows reproductive sacks that are not a common feature. Moreover, it was taken at night and does not show the surroundings, hence is not a completely in situ picture. I took this one precisely because there was no good picture of the whole colony, the previous best being this one, but low res as you noticed. FredD (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. But there remains the question of whether the other picture, though low-res, looks better at thumbnail size because it's lit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then this is purely subjective. I took this picture because I thought that the other pictures did not provide a sufficiently pertinent image of the species, but you are allowed to think otherwise. FredD (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just redefined my thumbnails to 400px and that picture seems to look a bit more useful at that size, because it's lit up, although what gives me pause is that I see more details in this photo. So I'll wait a day and see if there are any more comments before voting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm still not completely sure, but I'm acting on the basis that the other photo, being better lit, is in that respect more valuable, though in other respects, this photo is more valuable. It would be best for the relevant article to use both photos as thumbnails. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
_on_Aglaophenia_cupressina_(Stinging_hydroid).jpg){kind=link}
