Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Assassin bug aug08 02.jpg

Adult Assassin Bug

 * Reason:High quality image with a great deal of enc value thanks to the composition which clearly shows its curved rostrum - the hollow tube with which it stabs its prey and which curves under its head when not in use.
 * Articles this image appears in:Reduviidae and Rostrum (anatomy)
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - is that an out-of-focus foot behind the snout? Looks so in full size. Would it be sacrilege to retouch it out? ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in my book! Uploaded an edit --Fir0002 10:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Edit 1, Weak Oppose others Around half the body is out of focus, particularly the legs and face. I think a multi-layer shot would have been better. Capital photographer (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looks to me like it was taken in a natural setting, cut out, and a fake shadow added. Even if that's not how it was taken, the fact that that's the impression it elicits makes it an untrustworthy/unreliable picture in my book. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that it wasn't cut out - imagine cutting out all the hairs!! Your reason seems quite odd, as even if it were cut out and had a shadow added, then how does this make it an unreliable/untrustworthy image for the purposes of illustrating an assassin bug? If I'd added an extra antennae or something I could understand an oppose based on lack of enc. As it is your vote is of questionable value against WP:WIAFP --Fir0002 11:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think as the nominator, you're about the last person that can declare my opinion invalid, just for the record. Other editors are well aware of this. It's not like the rest of us comb through the support votes in the same way you try to discredit the opposes, so we know which way the bias lies. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone who has also had a disagreement with your reasoning in other noms, I don't think you can say that just because he's the nominator, he can't discredit/disprove your reasoning against objective criteria. Whether he's considered right or wrong is left up to the closer, but discussion is allowed. In addition to being the nominator, he's also a pretty experienced contributor and well aware of the FPC process, as am I. Perhaps we just both share the trait of being unable to bite our tongues when we see reasoning we strongly disagree with. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not surprising that you would speak up, given that you're another member of the not-so-silent pact of mutual support. I think I made it pretty clear that it's my opinion. It should be possible for you to accept that fact exactly as given, unless you have some ability to read my mind better than I can. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I must disagree with Lima Whisky, doesn't appear to be cut out. I think the reflection in the eye of the flash also confirms that. However, I feel some strong unsharp mask has been used which could give that impression. The mask has created a quite synthetic look. Capital photographer (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support I don't see anything wrong with the shadows. Muhammad (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong objection to editing out leg If you submitted an image to a science journal where you edited out a limb could cause you not to be published in the future should it be found out. Don't edit out body parts for aesthetic reasons: it's fakery.  --Blechnic (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Original. Leg just doesn't need to be cloned out IMO. I think it would have been preferable to have a more side on view, or slightly head on, but if this is the best you have, I still support. BTW, I'm assuming it wasn't actually taken in August 2008. Australia is ahead of GMT, but not that far ahead. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe good point :) --Fir0002 05:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The composition is weak. Also the editing of foot seems unnecessary and inappropriate, it was ok before.Swimmtastic (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User has <30 edits --Fir0002 05:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed inappropriate 'biter' quote added to this nomination here by Swimmtastic. Fir0002's comment re new editors is common practice at FPC, it is not aimed at you as a person, and is not "biting". You are entitled to make a comment, but Fir is also entitled to point out that you are a new user, as long as it is done in an appropriate manner, which is certainly the case here. It is also unnecessary to add the text itself which I assume is copied from an article somewhere and spoils the flow of the nomination; using a link would be more appropriate. --jjron (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Original Encyclopedic and to the point. victorrocha (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose edit 1 Inappropriate digital manipulation. Narayanese (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original. Oppose edit 1 (The foot should stay), not too keen on alt1. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Original, Oppose Edit 1. The good quality of the image is such that it outweighs the shallow DOF (which is always hard to get right on macros). The leg, however, should not be cloned out. Nautica Shad es  02:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)