Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blue monkey beetle

Scelophysa trimeni
Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2012 at 12:34:46 (UTC)
 * Reason:Seems to me we haven't had enough macro photography recently, almost no beetles, and pretty much nothing from South Africa. This image clearly shows the major features of the blue monkey beetle, mainly the size and colour of the scales, the feeding habit, and the large prehensile hind claws.  The flower this male is feeding on, Arctotis decurrens, is one of the typical food sources for monkey beetles.  The quality and resolution are very good.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Scelophysa trimeni
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
 * Creator:Julia W


 * Support as nominator --Julia\talk 12:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Soft and blurry. Numerous distracting elements. Only a bit of the carapace and wing covers visible. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it's neither soft nor blurry. Julia\talk  17:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify... the DoF is so narrow that only one of the rear legs is in critical focus. The bottom right is blurry yet it takes up a key part of the visual field, thus distracting. The head of the beetle is completely burried. While interesting behavior it lessens the EV for me. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. What a little glutton! I like it, and to hell with the technical jargon! Face-wink.svg I  Never  Cry  17:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This DOF is good for a macro - it would be hard to go deeper in an action shot given that this is already a 60mm lens in good light. The front petals are the only distracting element for me, but they are almost inevitable in a 3d flower, and are minimized by the composition.  Behaviour has as much EV as anatomy, and capturing it well is more difficult.  Value is enhanced by the sparcity of images of this subject or its relatives.  I enjoyed this photo. --99of9 (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support An excellent macro shot. I don't have any issue with the DOF. This beetle is 1cm x 0.5cm and I can see the hairs front and back and all the tiny spots on his body. From the article: "Adult blue monkey beetles are typically found grouped in the centres of unscented flowers that bear dark discs and bright petals with spot patterns at the bases. They feed on the pollen, embedding their heads into the discs and browsing, and sometimes supporting themselves by hooking their hind tarsal claws onto the flower petals" This description exactly matches the photograph both in setting and behaviour seen. It therefore has far higher EV IMO than an isolated bettle specimen, although that would have its own merits. -- Colin°Talk 07:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Tomer T (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Sorry- a strong photo, but I find the flower a little intrusive. J Milburn (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentThe so called "bug bar" is set pretty high and I fail to see how this leaps over it. All I see is a blue blob in the middle of a tortured flower. The supportive reviews read like an apology for acceptance of sub-standard work rather than accolades for wikipedia's finest. Good article though. However, including an image that actually showed the beetle should have been a first priority. 131.137.245.206 (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The supportive reviews are responding to the initial negative review, which caused the nominator to get cold feet. This isn't Commons. We're reviewing an article illustration. How many beetle photographs have we got demonstrating this much behaviour? Or indeed, any behaviour. Colin°Talk 14:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the number of such images has any bearing on the criteria it is to be judged. You have just made it sound as if you voted out of pity. Seems rather patronising. 131.137.245.207 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please stick to reviewing the picture and discussing review criteria wrt this picture and drop trying to psychoanalyse the reviewers. You are not only mistaken but the comments are unnecessary. Colin°Talk 10:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you refrain from being hypocritical? You call a review insulting, but get touchy when someone calls yours patronising. And to forestall further diatribes on my talk page I didn't find either assessment very helpful. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference. My comments were discussing whether a criterion used by a reviewer (the so-called "bug bar") was a fair measure of this picture. IMO comparing a photograph of a tiny beetle in-the-field with large beautiful butterflies alighting on a flower, or focus-stacked shots of dead wasps, is more than unfair. The IP in contrast was commenting on me as a person. Whether his opinions are fair and accurate isn't important; they have nothing to do with this image or how best to judge it. Colin°Talk 08:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Semantics. If the bug bar is insulting, and I use it, you are for all intents and purposes making a comment on me as a person. I was insulted by the inference. Your use was a deliberate attempt to vilify me as an individual and hence undermine my argument. 131.137.245.206 (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you were insulted by my comment, then I apologise. That was not my intention. Colin°Talk 12:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Saffron Blaze and Milburn. Flower is too distracting. Dusty 777 17:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I was pretty much thinking like Saffron Blaze and anonymous guy (who seems to regular contributor) but also like Colin. Seems to be by a good margin what's wikipedia has best to offer, and little Googling hasn't leaded me to better result. But I'd have loved to see a better shot of the whole beast before seeing the behaviour. And well, the "tortured" flowe, OOF part and overall composition make for a not so attractive picture to me. - Blieusong (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily trying to dissuade, but this is a very small beetle, with an adult lifespan of about a month, endemic to a fairly small region, within an African country that is already enormously under-represented. We'll be waiting a few lifetimes before we get another photo of a monkey beetle, particularly one where it's not devouring pollen head-first (which it does most of the time). It's not like worldwide flies or bees or caterpillars that buzz and crawl around on lots of convenient surfaces.  It seems rather petty to me to moan about some out of focus petals (which are obviously yummy ^^).  We've made much bigger concessions, plenty of times before.  Julia\talk  18:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral You dissuaded me at least. I'd like to add that I'm aware the aesthetic issues are not so valid reasons to oppose here (or at least of less importance), but I was neutral leaning towards oppose because of them. Also, we don't really see the head part, which happens to be what interest us here (edit: OK it's inherent to the shown behaviour). But you probably have mitigating circumstances I'm not aware of, as a very casual macro shooter. - Blieusong (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * CommentI think talk of a "bug bar" is rather insulting really. And factually incorrect when one examines the handful of beetle FPs we have, which are of decidedly mixed quality technically and generally extremely boring compositions (e.g, File:Beetle-Bessbug.jpg or File:Darkling beetle.jpg). While this picture doesn't have "cover girl" aesthetics, it is IMO a wonderful illustration. This makes it somewhat unconventional in comparison to all the lovely butterflies but read Featured picture criteria point 5, read the beetle's article, and think about it. Colin°Talk 19:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Colin, must you always resort to ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies when you don't get your way? The "bug bar" is a term often used here when discussing macro shots of insects and it isn't meant as an insult. I have never seen it used as such. You have picked out 2 images that support your case while disregarding the numerous brilliant macro shots we have of insects. If beetles are under represented that doesn't mean we have to accept sub standard works. Moreover I think we can attribute the article matching so well with the image due to the fact Julia is the author of both (not implying anything other than she provided a good description in the article of the well known behaviour we see in the image). And, just so this is clear I think the article is wonderful and the image useful but not as the lead and certainly not as a featured image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral I would like the entire beetle to be in focus and its head to be visible. I'm not bothered by the flower. I understand the challenged of macro photography enough to know what I ask for is not easily possible. A Question for Julia, do you live in South Africa? And if so, how difficult would it be for you to take another picture. I understand you said a few lifetimes. For now, I'll be neutral. Persuade me either way. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  22:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I live in the UK, not ZA. I may go there again, but probably not at the same time of year and perhaps not the same location.  It's not exactly an under-visited area because the spring wildflowers are popular with older South Africans, but they're not young, small, athletic, and loopy like I am, so they don't go crawling about in the wildflowers looking for small insects while carrying heavy and expensive camera gear, and even if they did, they wouldn't be uploading them to WP.  Internet access isn't as easy to come by there.  I have loads of other insect photos from the region but the problem is generally one of identification, which is always a challenge with these under-represented areas, and I have other monkey beetle photos, but they are burying themselves even more deeply in flowers and identification will be almost impossible.  This is one of the lucky few.  Anyone who follows feedback on the mainpage knows that IPs often moan about the number of insect photos, which are rarely pretty and, if you're not a morphology nut, rather boring.  And I maintain, despite the criticisms given here, that this is a more engaging and interesting photo than a lot of other insect pictures that we feature.  As for the head, it's pretty typical and pedestrian as far as insect heads go and is hardly a defining feature.  I could barely find a single description of it, in all of the research that I did for the article, but plenty was said about the claws, the scales, the behaviour, and how critical they are for pollination.  Make of that what you will.  :)  Julia\talk  17:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I better understand the EV of the image now, so I will change my vote.-- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  20:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Support-- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  20:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I was a little hasty in my previous comment, I didn't really research the beetle very much, nor did I check to see just how many pictures of this genus actually exist. I found that pictures of Scelophysa trimeni available are few, and none are the resolution of the nomination. This makes the EV of this picture considerably higher then I had considered earlier. The EV is excellent IMO. I cannot let the slight technical errors get in the way of the encyclopedic value. Changing my vote to Full Support. Dusty 777 02:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Alborzagros (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If EV in this instance trumps the other criteria I am content. It just seemed to me you were supplanting Valued for Featured and setting precedent in the process. I can see this has upset Julia, but I hardly think I was being petty or moaning. I'll take my leave of any further comment on this particular nomination.131.137.245.206 (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider it a new bug bar that refers just to bettles, as opposed to macro shots of insects in general. We'll call it the bettle bar. Appropriate given beetles aren't actually bugs. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Is this a place to evaluate or a horrible war-place? Better I close my mouth. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I seem unable to make a comment here without someone pointing out my many and varied flaws as a person, and anyone suggests my comments imply your beautiful butterfly pics are easy compared to this beetle, that's not my point at all. I have great respect for anyone who can capture such pictures well. They're just different. We need great pictures of specimens and we need great illustrations of animal behaviour and activities. Colin°Talk 12:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No; I didn’t consider your comments against me. The endless argument is the only thing that insulted me. And we lost the opportunity to make a good review and to help the contributor in her future attempts. I’m not making any comments here but interesting people (including Julia) can compare this work with the link I provided and learn where and how some improvements possible. Jkadavoor (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support  Mediran   talk 10:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding and supporting alt. I hope that this crop will address criticisms mentioned above. Pine✉ 07:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Afraid I don't like the Alt. The balance is wrong and we can no longer see the size of the flower. -- Colin°Talk 10:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

--King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)