Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Austrolestes annulosus.jpg

Austrolestes Annulosus

 * Reason:There is a FP on this species, but its beginning to show its age. This one is reasonably high quality and clear.
 * Articles this image appears in:Austrolestes annulosus
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Only just sharp/detailed enough, and the obvious flash/overexposure of the branch on the far right isn't ideal, but the dark background does allow it to stand out and the composition is good. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support I would have preferred a more natural background, similar to the current FP one. --Muhammad (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Agree with Muhammad and Diliff on aesthetics, but let's support for better EV. Fletcher (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seems a bit rich having two FPs for such a puny stub of an article. Perhaps a "Delist and replace" would have been more in order? --jjron (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A delist is probably getting due for the other one. I really see delist and replace nominations as most useful for related images (say a better version of something comes along). Noodle snacks (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But aren't two images of the same species, from a relatively similar angle, related? Or are you really just suggesting something like a better version of the same image - higher res, improved post-processing, or whatever? --jjron (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A delist and replace would not allow the pic to be up for POTD, would it? --Muhammad (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's up to the POTD man to decide, given he's a human and not a bot ;-). But you're probably right, given it doesn't go through the same FP promotion process, it may well be overlooked. Is that a reason not to do it though? --jjron (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean a better version of the same image (eg higher res). Lots of species have multiple FPs and they don't go through a delist and replace with every nomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do, and no, they don't. But I wonder every time about whether the second image is necessary, and often oppose based on that (at least I used to) or comment on the delist and replace. To an extent though it comes down to the pictures - do they show something different? Are they illustrating different articles, or at least different parts of the same substantial article? Are they providing different information on the species? I would be concerned that the answer to all these is "no" in this case, in which case I'd suggest it's a likely candidate for 'delist and replace'. Just my spin on it... --jjron (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree to an extent too. A new FP should give something new that the existing one does not, but usually this is the case by nature. In fact, there are two FPs of Tower Bridge in London, and they are almost identical although the view is from the opposite side of the river. I was happy to have the new one replace the old one but others suggested that they could both be FPs. One had superior lighting (IMO) while the other had superior detail, so I suppose that is an example of showing something different, albeit not a particularly good one. Still, I don't see the real harm in having more than one FP if they are both worthy. I'm not sure that Fir0002's original image is by current standards though. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support a delist and replace. I feel this image is of higher quality than the previous. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣ kiss mei'm Irish ♣ 05:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Existing FP shows wing pattern much more clearly. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The other FP has its virtues, but this one is complementary and very nice (and a whole lot better in thumbnail).--ragesoss (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support —  Jake   Wartenberg  01:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

--Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)