Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Darkling beetle.jpg

Darkling Beetle

 * Reason:Good quality and EV. Better identification was not possible probably because few beetles have been completely identified and more research is needed. A different angle/composition was not possible as the beetle was hiding in crevices in rocks.
 * Articles this image appears in:Darkling beetle, Tenebrioninae
 * Creator:Muhammad

 Zoo Fari  00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - EV issues due to lack of identification. The Tenebrioninae is a large family and this species can hardly be considered as representative. Could it be a Leichenum sp. ? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the forum where it had been identified and there was some further identification which I had forgotten to add to the image description. It is a Alphitobius sp. No EV issues now, I presume --Muhammad (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about the length of the animal? Is 2mm right? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the beetle was around 5mm long. --Muhammad (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Can't say for sure on the monitor I'm using, but WB seems very blue. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked on a second monitor. WB seems fine to me. --Muhammad (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sorry but I can't see anything here deserving FP status. Correct and good quality photo, but nothing more. I don't like the framing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What more is required. It has tremendous EV and very good quality compared to other images of its kind in the article. Come on Alves, are you just bent on opposing this picture? First EV and now framing? I thought this FPC was more about EV then any other criterion and I fail to see your reasoning. --Muhammad (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is required some magic or exceptional value, which I can't see here. Quality is not enough and you can't expect all of your pictures to be promoted. Did I already say that we are choosing the best of the best? My first oppose was automatic, I didn't even need to open the picture (the comment about few beetles having been identified isn't convincing). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Compared to other beetles in the article, how is the quality? Images have to judged in context to other images of the kind, not just other macro images. This beetle was around 5mm long, getting better quality than this is impossible and if this is the best wikipedia has, than it should be promoted. If you know of any better darkling beetle pictures, than let's see them and compare them to this and choose the best of the best. And whether the first argument was convincing or not, its what the entomologists tell me. It seems kinda funny that you oppose for a reason, once that is fixed, you strike out your oppose only to oppose again after the nomination has received some support. --Muhammad (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The background is quite distracting. Do you think you might be able to get a better angle/composition in the future or is this really the best possible? Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The background is the part of the rock where it hides/lives. I tried different angles but this one showed the beetle in the best possible manner for quality and EV. --Muhammad (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality, EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the critter is not identified, it is not really useful encyclopaedically. GerardM (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is identified till genus (only a step away from species) which is enough for it use in articles. Several featured pictures are identified to this level only as it is almost impossible to identify any further without dissection of the specimen. --Muhammad (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The same is true of many fungi species too. On some occasions the naming hasn't been done yet. 58.6.103.150 (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further id would not be very useful as the image is being used in the subfamily and family articles. --Muhammad (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the merits of this picture.. The critter is not identified and as such its encyclopaedic value is low.
 * This is as far as is possible. At least 20 other featured pictures exist with this level of identification only. --Muhammad (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Illustrates the subject well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support your reasonings are rediculous. You guys for some weird reason you are being more strict on this one. Muhammad addressed all the issues, what else could you possibly need? I've seen far worse images that you guys have supported, and yet if this was a FP for delisting, you would just be peevy about it.  Zoo  Fari  02:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)