Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Tabanid July 2010-2.jpg

Cleg Fly
Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 18:09:48 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality picture showing characteristic features of the family (blade-like mouth parts, robust antennae) and genus (pictured wings, colorful eyes), adding to the articles EV
 * Articles in which this image appears:Tabanidae, Haematopota
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
 * Creator:Joaquim Alves Gaspar


 * Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Reluctantly. I thought this was fairly eye-catching. But upon inspecting the full-res version, I find it barely meets the resolution requirements (which isn’t a strike against it but neither is it a virtue). The deal breaker for me was that the in entire back end of the fly is out of focus. Another shortcoming is the crop, or lack thereof. This couldn’t be cropped tighter without breaking the resolution minimum. Greg L (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I have to agree with Greg here. This just isn't up to the standard we've come to expect from insect photography. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Echo above... gaz hiley .co.uk  12:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support I agree that it would be better if the back was better and we got a close-up of the bug, but as is I think it still is decent. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  03:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a great photo with great technical standard.  However, the angle is cliche.  Consider how a 45 degrees up, 45 degrees to the right, picture would look; that's approaching interesting. Gut Monk (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that some people are complaining about depth of field, changing the angle so that the main elements are no longer within the same focal plane is unlikely to help much. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How should I respond to a aesthetical criticism (a "cliché" angle) when the purpose of this particular composition is to show some particular characteristic features of the family (mouth parts, antennae) and the genus (wings)? Also, I don't think the argument about the size is fair, since the image is within the 2 Mp requirement, the subject takes most part of the space and those features are shown in sufficient detail. The new size requirements are certainly not to be applied to the subject only! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)