Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Flesh fly concentrating food.jpg

Flesh fly concentrating its food

 * Reason:High quality image of interesting behaviour. True the DOF doesn't cover the whole of the body, but the relevant areas (the head) are in sharp focus.
 * Articles this image appears in:Digestion, Regurgitation (digestion)
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 05:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment good quality macro as usual, but a few concerns. The reason for the bubble blowing you mention is not confirmed and is just a theory. Also, we already have an insect bubble blowing FP though your seems more interesting. --Muhammad (talk)  07:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know because I'm no expert but the guy from the Australian Museum seemed pretty sure of it, and it does make sense. The other likely theory is that it's just fun to do :) I don't think the second FP is much an issue because there are many subjects which have two FP's - eg White-faced Heron - and the other image isn't even used in the articles this image is used in. --Fir0002 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will support if the caption and the articles are slightly modified to show that the concentration of the food may be the reason for bubble blowing, among other reasons. --Muhammad (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Made some changes, let me know what you think --Fir0002 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support ok I guess --Muhammad (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support Undoubted EV (whatever he's up to – doesn't anyone speak Sarcophagidic?) although I have to say it's a touch over-sharpened for my taste. --mikaultalk 12:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Assuming the caption change as been done. The lighting is too harsh or its over sharpened but the bubble blowing makes up for it. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Personally, I don't see what long, elaborate captions have to do with FPC. This is a great photo of an interesting phenomenon - whether or not we can explain the phenomenon is beside the point. I note that the quality of this pic is slightly lower than some of the other macro images we've had, but we have to make an effort not to raise the bar. This was good enough a few years ago, and it's still good enough. Stevage 06:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality, EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

-- wade ster 16   05:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)