Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Ixodus ricinus 5x.jpg

Ixodes ricinus

 * Reason:Good quality, EV, and very interesting. The photographer endured much physical torment over this picture, the details of which can be found here
 * Articles this image appears in:Ixodes ricinus, Tick-borne encephalitis, Tick
 * Creator:Richard Bartz


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Great macro. Very impressed by Richard Bartz's focus stacking! His macro work reminds me of the ridiculous lengths I occasionally go to with my high res panoramas. :-) I see from the Commons nomination that he used 72 images for this stack. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality, and informative.  Sophus Bie  (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - extremely impressive technical quality (magnification, focus stacking), pleasing colours and composition. Minor EV problems in the sense that not the entire tick is shown, but that can be overcome by the details on the head and the fact that the rest of the tick is fairly uninteresting anyway. I'd be interested to see an addition to the caption on the subject of how this tick comes to have the expanded bulgy skin-toned bit behind it as different from this one. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Hooray!  An explicit size reference!  Spikebrennan (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Love the measurement, adds a lot to the image. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for spelling the nom correctly. The other one bothered me. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 19:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I only spelled it right 'cause I saw your comment there :) --Muhammad (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Shame about the cut off tho - but there's sufficient value in the detail shown --Fir0002 05:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support great work --AngMoKio (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, probably not necessary to pile on a support, but two reasons: 1) this exceptionaly encyclopedic and technically outstanding work is to me what en.FPC should be about (rather than pretty Hallmark-flower-shots), 2) to counter the apparent belief that I'm just here to complain. --Dschwen 15:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 08:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)