Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Fiddler beetle nov07.jpg

Fiddler Beetle

Reason: High quality image of this striking beetle
Articles this image appears in: Beetle, Scarabaeidae
Creator: Fir0002

Support as nominator --Fir0002 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many things going on in the picture--Caspian blue 23:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit... surprising. Unless you want a studio white background shot then I honestly can't see how there can be "too many things going on" - this is nature! --Fir0002 10:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not find any element of surprise from my oppose comment. You could take pictures on a living creature with different backgrounds like this example.Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Metriorrhynchus rhipidius.jpg The bug has a very complicated pattern, so the background adds more complexity to the picture.--Caspian blue 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah OK well the thing is you're very unlikely to find one of these away from a flowering plant (see these examples: [1] [2] [3]), so any other background would be contrived. Would you prefer a white background (for future reference as there aren't any around this year)? --Fir0002 04:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, the plant in the examples look fine because the color and form are not conspicuous like the one in the current picture. I'm not a big fan of white background, but if you try black or yellow backgrounds, that would be interesting.--Caspian blue 17:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, ~~I think caspian's oppose is a little silly~~ I disagree with caspian's oppose IFF the beetle is feeding on the flower, however I'd like to actually see the front of the thing if it is. Therefore the image has EV for identification but not for feeding. I didn't spot any glaring technical issues. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you disagree with my argument, that is fine. However, do not use such offensive language which does not make you credible nor "smart". Evaluation of photography also include "capturing a right moment". My oppose is less about its technical issues". --Caspian blue 01:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Happy? Apologies Noodle snacks (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to clarify it is in fact feeding and what is the "thing" you wanted to see the front of? --Fir0002 10:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thing is the insect, so I'd prefer to see it from an angle which makes the feeding component clearer. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah that thing! :) Well this reminds me a bit of that Painted Lady nom - I fear if I made the feeding more prominent it will lose all EV! :) But yes the primary feature of the image is to show the beetle as a species, but it also (IMO) shows it feeding fairly clearly (given it's got it's head buried in a flower and has an appropriate caption) --Fir0002 02:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality and good EV. I don't have any problem with the background or the angle:I think they're just right. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ideally I'd like to see more of the mouthparts but enough of the beetle is visible to clearly identify it - adding value to the article - and the technical and aesthetic quality is up to scratch. Guest9999 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Fiddler beetle nov07.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]