Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Squash bug Coreidae hz.jpg

Squash bug nymph

 * Reason:Good quality, composition and featured on commons. EV is particularly good because it is the only nymph picture on wiki. Unfortunately, it can not be identified any further because unless physically observed and dissected it is not possible to identify nymphs. Identifying expert mentioned on description page.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Coreidae
 * Creator:Muhammad Mahdi Karim


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I rarely vote on these types of pics as I don't know enough about insects but I will support this as I found it very high in EV as I didn't realise "baby" insects were called nymphs, and that they looked identical other than in size until adult... so for the EV alone I am supporting this...  It's also good quality pic, no flaws that I can see, other than the rear legs (in the pic - in reality it's the front and rear left legs) are out of focus, but apparently this is ok... Gazhiley (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support It's hard at first to see what's bug and what's plant, and the orange antennae are out of focus. HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it may be difficult to to figure that out but I think that's one of the adaptations of the bug. Quoting from the article,"They are also called “leaf-footed bugs” due to the leaf-like expansions some species have on their hindlegs." --Muhammad (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Good quality, resolution and obviously good EV. - ☩  Damërung   ☩   .  -- 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Avenue (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very little encyclopedic value. We have dozens, maybe even hundreds of good photos of squash bugs on Commons (with genuine free licenses to boot). A photo of an unidentified nymph is relatively useless. I don't even think it should be in the article, honestly. Kaldari (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the expert, nymphs are almost impossible to identify. The image is used to illustrate a nymph, enlighten me as to how it is useless. I don't expect this picture to be the sole FP expected of a squash bug. We can have one showing the adult as well.--Muhammad (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Kaldari, considering the article this picture is illustrating. This nymph does not represent all nymphys of the Coreidae family. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I am trying to say. If the experts can't place it any further than the family, then IMO it is representative of the family --Muhammad (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (lol) Nice try, Muhammad, but I can't believe you don't see the flaw in your reasoning... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then tell me where my flaw lies --Muhammad (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't want to give the impression of patronizing you! The fact that nymphs are more difficult to identify is because they usually don't show in a clear way the features characteristic of each species or genus, not that all nymphs in this family of some 2k species are similar. As a matter of fact, they are not! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not following that. If one stumbles upon a nymph and wonders, "hmmm, I wonder what that is", then Wikipedia will tell one that it is a nymph of the Coreidae family.  Where exactly is the problem with that?  That sounds like EV to me?   Mae din\ talk 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The lol had me there with the patronizing. The very fact that they do not show distinctive features and thus illustrate a general view is a reason why they can be used to illustrate the family article. Of course, not all nymphs are similar just as all monkeys are not similar. But a monkey article would do well with a picture of a monkey showing the general features the tail, ears etc. Similarly, IMO the family article benefits from the nymph picture. To add to the argument, would you propose removal of all images from all family and genus articles and keeping images only in the species articles because not all the members of the genus are similar? --Muhammad (talk)  19:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said that this particular nymph (or any nymph) illustrates a general view of the whole family? That is certainly not true. If this individual is difficult to identify is because there are (probably) several species sharing these same visible features, as nymphs. Not the whole family, as shape and colours vary a lot! I also didn't say that this image does not add value to the article, only that its EV do not justify the FP status. Well, do you really believe that all non-FP images should be removed from the articles? ;-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This bug was difficult to identify further than family but till the family it was much easier. When I was photographing it, with my limited knowledge, I thought here's a Coreidae and when I sent it to the expert, he with all his resources came to the same conclusion. Now I am not saying that all nymphs of Coreidae are the same but they have many similar features which is why they have been gropued together. Secondly, I always thought adding value to the article = EV, was I wrong? I really don't undertsand your question about removing non-FPs from articles. I asked you a genuine question and now we are asking rhetorical ones? --Muhammad (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (clarify) This nymph certainly shares some of the distinctive features of the family, otherwise it wouldn't have been identified as a Coreidae! But the fact that the genus could not be identified doesn't qualify it automatically as a good representative of the family, like Muhammad pretends -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And again you state your belief but don't explain why or provide any evidence. Why doesn't it qualify as a good representative of the family? --Muhammad (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Last try (not a question of belief but logic):
 * If the experts can't place it any further than the family, then IMO it is  representative of the family . This is a fallacy. If something makes it representative of the family is the set of features it shares with the other members, not the dificulty in identifying the species;
 * It is not me who has to prove that this nymph does not represent the whole familiy, it is you who has to convince the reviewers it does (which you were not able to do so far). The concept of type has been used by biologists to designate the genus that best represent a certain familiy. Can you show us (other than with a fallacy) that this is the typical genus of the Coreidae family? Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of you are partially right. Yes, the nymph shows characteristics of a squash bug nymph, but that is not particularly useful to an entomologist. If it showed diagnostic characteristics of a particular species or genus, it would have far more EV, but squash bugs typically don't show those characteristics until they are an adult. The same is true of most spiders. That's why I don't even bother uploading photos of immature spiders. They just don't have enough EV to be useful. Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

-- Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Slight DOF issues with the antennae and hind legs. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In such close-up macro work, getting the whole insect in focus is nearly impossible. The DOF is small and short of a focus stack, one would hardly ever see a an insect in complete focus. Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's still out of focus... and that's frowned upon normally but for some reason this time it's ok... Gazhiley (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. If this is indeed representative of all nymphs in this family, I see no problem with the lack of specific identification. Nautica Shad es  22:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)