Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Rust Mite, Aceria anthocoptes.jpg

Rust Mite

 * Reason:Good quality, good Ev and lots of wow. Image was previously nominated here as an alternative. IMO, the picture shows a different kind of mite than the featured one and deserves to be featured.
 * Articles this image appears in:Mite, Acarina, Eriophyidae, Eriophyoidea
 * Creator:Erbe, Pooley: USDA, ARS, EMU.


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Very clear and 'otherworldly'. Definitely striking. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's already featured. But if you want to feature it twice, Go ahead. ;)  Durova Charge! 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, on Commons - unless there's a duplicate? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, right you are. Checking further, I nominated it there but not here because it had already been a candidate here and was not promoted in 2005.  Featured picture candidates/Mites.  Durova Charge! 18:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking this over, support. No reason why not.  Durova Charge! 00:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Although what's the white stuff? Possibly sap leaking out?Terri G (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting, and seems like good quality for this magnification. Can someone explain the "rust" in the name?  Fletcher (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoating from here, "Rust mites suck juices on conifer needles. When many mites are present their damage gives the needle a dusty, rust-colored appearance" --Muhammad (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now I get it. Fletcher (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Checking the 'previous nom' it looks like a quirk of that actual nomination that it wasn't promoted then. Looks good. --jjron (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If this one is promoted that will be good evidence against the practice of nominating multiple photographs. Fletcher (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. When I said it was 'a quirk' of the nom, I guess I was suggesting the nom was done in an odd way. To clarify, the nom was put up as 'mites', but the three alts offered were very different photos of entirely different species. You would therefore generally expect them to be put up as three different noms, not as alts for one nom, though maybe that's how it was done at the time. --jjron (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure why I didn't renominate this separately back in 2005. I guess back then it didn't seem right for one article (mite) to have more than one featured picture. Oh well, support now. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2009-02-26 17:54Z
 * Yeah, I also considered that back at the first nom they were maybe all only in the same article. Having two FPs for the same article used to be considered a no-no as I remember it, but seems to be rarely thought about now. --jjron (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Great magnification and detail.  And very interesting.   Mae din \talk 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)