Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Austroicetes vulgaris.jpg

Austroicetes vulgaris

 * Reason:High quality in a natural environment. Good DOF considering the 1:1.4 mag or so. Only was 5-6 cm from the bug (don't get much working distance with my setup)
 * Articles this image appears in:Bandwing
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Nice composition, however, it could use a crop to get rid of the left space portion . The leaf in front of the face kind of distracts as well.
 * On second thought, It's better this way.  Zoo Fari  03:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Durova Charge! 04:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality, DOF and environment as nom. Its usage in the article was IMO weak, so I replaced it as the taxobox image. It would add EV if articles of the genus and species were created. --Muhammad (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a reason not to rotate it to make the bug horizontal? I guess you'd lose a lot of the image, but still...Stevage 14:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pleased with the composition. Rotating it to make the ground flat would lose it.  Zoo Fari  16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The bug was on a slope, the camera was level. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but — how do I put this tactfully — who cares? With such a narrow shot, you can't tell whether the ground is flat, sloping, upside down etc, so imho, we're pretty free to rotate the image arbitrarily. Like that wasp image recently, which ended up being rotated 90 degrees. Stevage 01:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to be anal about it the stress from gravity would cause strain in the legs etc, changing things with angle. The insect would probably alter the angle of it's legs a bit with orientation too. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Quite nice, but again wish it was illustrating an article more specific to the species (as per the damselfly above). Re the slope, in my experience these type of bugs have a tendency to more often than not orient themselves on slight inclines, often blades of grass or similar, so it looks quite natural this way. --jjron (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support Blurred foreground quite distracting, but the insect just about free of blur.Terri G (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: As Muhammad said, good quality, DOF, and environment.  Mae din \talk 20:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 10:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)