Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Cowboy beetle - Chondropyga dorsalis02.jpg

Cowboy Beetle

Reason: High quality image, excellent DOF and sharpness (7 frame focus stack)
Articles this image appears in: Flower chafer, Polyphaga
Creator: Fir0002

Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Size ref or scale? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Size is approximately 3cm. --Fir0002 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it dead? Why are its legs like that? Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No its quite alive. I can upload an alt in a more natural environment when commons starts accepting uploads again --Fir0002 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original - Questionable encyclopedic value. There are already no less than seven featured pictures of Polyphaga beetles (and dozens of high quality images). There are also already two featured pictures of Flower chafer beetles (and one Commons featured picture). If you want your picture to contribute value to Wikipedia, why not write an article on the species or genus rather than putting it into articles that already have better images available? Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seven FPs out of 300,000 species in that suborder doesn't appear to bad a ratio to me! I'd have started a stub on this species but unfortunately I couldn't find any substantial information on this species on the internet. I might try later at the uni library when semester starts next week. But I think EV remains independent of the existence or non existence of the species article. Because it is a high quality, well identified shot, all it takes is someone else (collaborative project) to piece together an article. I'd also suggest that this is of equal, if not higher quality than our existing FPs and makes a fine illustration for Polyphaga as well as Flower chafer. --Fir0002 00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying that there are too many featured pictures of Polyphaga beetles. I'm saying that since there are already seven, probably at least one of those should be used in the article, especially since they show the beetles in a more natural setting. Kaldari (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Personally I don't really see much advantage to a "more natural setting" as they usually involve a substantial trade off in DOF, lighting and composition (distracting elements). At any rate I've got an alternative which might suit you better --Fir0002 05:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Alt 1 - Definitely an improvement on the original (although I know others will disagree). I hate insect photos that look like clinical specimens. If you've never read Jean Henri Fabre, I strongly recommend it. Imagine Ralph Waldo Emerson as an entomologist. Anyway, my point is, DOF (and/or technical perfection) isn't the most important consideration for Wikipedia photographs. Even though the DOF of the Alt isn't perfect, it's adequate and natural looking, and you actually get to see more of the insect because of the angle. (Isn't that the point of wanting more DOF?) The lighting isn't great, although I know it's extremely difficult to get good lighting on scarab beetles (which makes some of your other photographs so impressive). Also, the cropping is a bit tight on the top, but you probably know that. I would probably give it a Weak Support except I still think the EV is weak. Maybe I'll write an article for it this weekend if you don't beat me to it. Kaldari (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Kaldari, not enough EV. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester 16 03:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]