Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Drosophila.jpg

Drosophila sp.

 * Reason:The size is above requirements but smaller than what I usually upload due to the size of the fly. This is a crop of the fly at 1:1 without any downnsampling at all. I know this may be a long shot but compared to this previous lead image taken by a very competent macro photographer, the lighting and quality of this one is pretty good. IMO it meets the criteria and is among wikipedia's best work on the subject of drosophils.
 * Articles this image appears in:Drosophila, Drosophilidae, Drosophilinae
 * Creator:Muhammad


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some of these insects need to stop feeding on toxic waste. O_o  Mae din \talk 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pushing the bar too far. Barely meets size requirements but still soft, colour balance looks way off, and for mine it sits too high in the frame. Sorry, I know regulars sometimes like to 'push their luck' as it were, but I think there has to a be limit somewhere. --jjron (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do regulars 'push their luck'? If anything, regulars are less likely to push their luck. IMO it's the people unfamiliar with the criteria and current standards that push their luck. ;-) Not that I'm discouraging people from finding new images out there and giving it a go, but the success rate from regular contributors is probably far higher than the average - just stating what I think is the case. Having said that, I agree with you that it's probably just a little too soft and low res but please do also consider that it's basically impossible without specialist macro equipment to get anything better than this in terms of detail. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may need to check your definition; you can't push your luck unless you are a regular - i.e., you have to have had luck before you can push it. My point is that from time to time (and sometimes too often) we see borderline images nominated by regulars with special pleading reasons and extended arguments with opposers. We don't typically get that from newbies, who generally make well intentioned noms, even if they are often misguided, and they are far more willing to accept the votes as given. --jjron (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough regarding the phrase, but I don't think regulars are given any special privileges and are just as likely to get their images opposed as any newbies if they're below par. I was only defending this image because it happens to be at the limit of what can be done with mainstream macro lenses but note I didn't support it and I haven't seen Muhammad defending the indefensible either. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya reckon? --jjron (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can do better with a couple of extension tubes. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * comment color balance looks just right to me. de Bivort 21:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't word it quite as strong as jjron, but I share his thoughts that it might be a little too warm (mainly judging by the leaf, which is more yellow than I would expect, but of course I'm guessing). I've uploaded an edit that I think looks more natural - could you comment on whether you still think the original is more accurate? I bring this up because I thought another of Muhammad's macro photos was a little warm too. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks warm to me (on a calibrated monitor). Noodle snacks (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The grays in the wings of drosophilids are far from neutral. They are rather warm to begin with. So, while your fly looks pretty good for how a fly would look on a neutral background, the original is closer to how it should look against a bright green background, given its translucency and the reflected light off the leaf. de Bivort 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, this is a fairly well calibrated array of studio drosophila images I made for work a little while back. Now the question is, what would they look like on a bright green leaf... de Bivort 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per above. - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ Ξ_       .  --  18:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - For the newer version, better color balance. - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ Ξ_       .  --  07:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Drosophila is a huge genus with sub-groups some of whom diverged from each other some 50 million years ago (there may be even more distant examples that I'm not aware of, what, with 1500 species in the genus!) Not enough ID to have much EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Used to illustrate the genus and higher taxonomic levels. No further ID is needed, really. de Bivort 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, while there are a few drosophila species that can be distinguished by external morphological characters, many groups are only distinguishable by characters that are really only visible under electron microscopy or after dissection (such as genitalia morphology). Your reasoning risks precluding any drosophila from FP status because no single traditional photograph would allow a species ID. de Bivort 20:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true. The geographic ranges of some species are well documented, and laboratory stocks of named species are trivially easy to get hold of. Given that most of the scientific work done on these species is in genetics, there can hardly be a laboratory stock out there that hasn't been ID'd genetically. Just ask your friendly genetics professor to be allowed to take some pictures - most of the time, they have flies to spare, and you'd only be asking for a single specimen to take a picture like this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I am a drosophila genetics professor. I have dozens of the various stocks of which you speak at my disposal. See above. The point is, this is a wild species. It is therefore hard to ID with morphological characters. Even the lab stocks D simulans and D melanogaster require microscopy to distinguish morphologically. By requiring a photo that has sufficient morphological information, you are precluding pretty much all drosophila species, wild or no from FP status. Since the image is used to illustrate the family and genus, and has plenty of characters sufficient to ID it to family and genus, that's all that can reasonably be asked. de Bivort 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for morphological characters. I'm quite happy for someone to say they took a picture of such and such a laboratory stock. Unless you want to go on the record claiming that there is no morphological diversity within Drosophila apart from the genitalia, I suggest you accept my position as valid. Just to recap: I see absolutely no reason to accept an image of insufficient size that hasn't even been ID'd, when this is easily possible anywhere near almost any university with a biology department. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)



No consensus in my eyes.-- wadester 16  17:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)