Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Mycena leaiana var. australis.jpg

Mycena leaiana var. australis
Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 00:05:39 (UTC)
 * Reason:It shows all of the important characteristics for identification apart from the spore print.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Mycena leaiana
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms/Fungi
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support As always, wonderful work! — raeky ( talk 00:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Per Raeky. Greg L (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Nice photo -- George Chernilevsky  talk 07:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Can't comment on it's EV as I know nothing about this subject, but the picture is pretty much perfect from what I can see... It could do with being inserted randomly into about 20 irrelevant articles though....... Gazhiley (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The picture is fantastic, but there is currently nothing in the article about var. australis. I have found this article, which discusses it at length (for anyone who has access to JSTOR) and so I will add a brief discussion of it later today- I'm in a hurry right now. I will then be happy to support. J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sasata probably has access to the article, since he used it here Amanita vaginata. — raeky ( talk 12:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

per WP:SNOW -- Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Why doesn't Pileus (mycology) have any real images like this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably a good question for the editors at WikiProject_Fungi, but if I had to venture a guess is the lack of or difficulty of finding good side profiles of all those types. — raeky ( talk 18:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a short article on a technical point which is key for identification; in practice, of course, it's not that simple, meaning photographs are perhaps not overly useful. I don't have access to my mushroom field-guides right now, but I can assure you that in at least two of the three I use, photographs are not used- instead, diagrams similar to ours are the main illustration. In a longer article, there may well be a place, but a longer article would get very technical very quickly; in any case, any photographs used would be of very specific things- macro shots, microscopic shots, artificial shots, shots of specimens in different stages of growth- this is not a picture that could be just casually slipped in in the way you suggest. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I have added mention of the variety in several places in the article, as well as updating the categories. I have also moved this image to share the taxobox, as showing the two different varieties is a great use of multiple taxobox images, in my eyes. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Nice one Hive001   contact  11:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely. Sasata (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)