Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ceriagrion glabrum female

Ceriagrion glabrum female

 * Reason:Good quality, lighting and EV. Complements male image nominated below in two articles.
 * Articles this image appears in:Sexual dimorphism, Sexual dichromatism, Ceriagrion, Ceriagrion glabrum
 * Creator:Muhammad


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Errrr, I don't like that yellow leaf. Is this the only photo you got?  Zoo Fari  23:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternative added --Muhammad (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Either, pref original, white balance is reasonably consistent in this one. Leaf is unfortunate but bad luck. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, prefer alternate, which has better composition and a deeper background.--ragesoss (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. FWIW I don't think these are particularly good in the Sexual dimorphism article. Given they're different images we can't really be sure about illustrated differences in size, etc due to editing anomalies - a single image showing both male and female is far better. If there's colour issues (see nom below) then it also makes the use in Sexual dichromatism questionable. They have suitable EV for the species articles though. --jjron (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Color issues seem to be fixed, and addressed in the nom below. As for sexual dimorphism, the body pattern and colour illustrate pretty well IMO. It would be hard to get both the male and female in one picture unless they are mating and that I haven't seen of these damsels yet. --Muhammad (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which may simply mean this is unlikely to be a suitable animal to illustrate sexual dimorphism with. One of the most common differences in sexual dimorphism is the different sizes between male and female, but we are unable to accurately judge them here. Or if I was to put another way, this is probably the weakest 'image' in the sexual dimorphism article in terms of EV, as all others show both male and female in a single image. --jjron (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Anyway, some image is better than none, right? However, if you feel strongly then feel free to remove the images, but as you mentioned, the images do illustrate the other two articles so the nomi shouldn't be affected. --Muhammad (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily say EV is so bad that it should be pulled from the article; was just trying to make the point that the EV wasn't so good in the sexual dimorphism articles, so should be judged in terms of its value to the other articles. :-) --jjron (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original The light is softer, so the details are a bit easier to see. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Second support? Gee, thanks :-) --Muhammad (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck. MER-C 03:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blond moment. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: with a strong preference for the alternative.  Mae din \talk 11:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support alternative1: I thought the yellow in the top picture was part of the "ceriagrion glabrum" creature (a dragonfly)? I think the bottom picture does a much better job of illustrating exactly what it is. Banaticus (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original. Less distracting. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

--wadester16 | Talk→ 19:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)