Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Dolichomitus imperator Oviposition R Bartz.jpg

Oviposition of Dolichomitus imperator

 * Reason:rare & complex image of oviposition by a female ichneumon wasp
 * Articles this image appears in:Ichneumonidae & Oviposition
 * Creator:--Richard Bartz (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator Richard Bartz (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Somewhat blurry photos. Picture 3 and 4 seem to be the same action, just at different angles.  crassic ![ talk ] 02:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support Seems to be very encyclopedic, and gets more brownie points if it is as difficult to capture on film as the nominator says it is. My only qualms are that the needle is out of focus in shot 4, the bug is inexplicably facing the wrong direction in shot 3, and the obstruction in shot 6. Nevertheless, I still think this is a quality, significant find. I would support a high res shot of just one shot, as well. Probably number 5. The freddinator (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - since Richard has kindly provided the full-resolution images, couldn't a larger-resolution composite be made up? It seems a bit small at present, which obscures some of the details of the process . Also, the caption could be better (I understand Richard's excitement, but that's part of the reason for nominating, not a caption that could be shown on the main page), and work in the commentary on the image page of what each image shows. All in all, a GREAT set of photos, but I think we could do better with assembling them into a combined image. Also, if they could be cropped in such a way that let the first be in the same orientation as the rest, that'd be good (possible, maybe not, but good =P). Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support! Brilliant image. For anyone who has tried macro of bugs, it is rare to get one picture in a series that has great sharpness... here there are 6! in the same set with each increasing the ENC value exponentially. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 16:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll hold out for a larger resolution composite. ;) Durova Charge! 17:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support per Fcb981 - Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/question. I know on a profile macro shot it is very difficult to take the picture without some foreground blur, but it just seems to be quite a bit of it in some of the frames which can be distracting, is there a reasonable way to reduce it?  Secondly, as per above, frame 1 is at a skew and I would support a reorientation of the frame to fit the series.  A fantastic and stunning set of photos otherwise.D-rew (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose No idea what is happening here and neither the full size photo nor the caption make it any clearer. Tomdobb (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless it is clarified in the caption or on the image description page what exactly is going on in the image. Right now it looks like a photo montage with nothing connecting the photos together. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-04-08 18:52Z
 * Can we try to have a little less opposition-due-to-ignorance? Icheneumon wasps lay their eggs inside the maggots or caterpillars of other insects, which they hatch in and then eat their host from inside, keeping it alive for as long as possible. This is a series of images showing how one group of Icheneumon wasps dig a hole through wood that grubs are in, then insert their ovipositor, manoeuvre it around until it pierces the grub, then inject their eggs. Richard Bartz's first language is clearly not english (German, I believe?) and to full oppose just because the nominator finds it difficult to explain complex biology in English seems a little rude. I have, however, added a better caption. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a bit insulting to allege opposition-due-to-ignorance when the caption clearly violated one of the FPC, specifically "Has a good caption The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption." The picture lacks encyclopedic value when its not clear what exactly is being shown. It's a wholly valid reason for opposing. Tomdobb (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its not very difficult to understand this sequence. Other biology-interested users understood it very well.
 * Don't be absurd. The old caption explained nothing. It's that simple. We're not supposed to assume the reader has any prior knowledge of the subject. Or are you suggesting a 6-year-old, knowing nothing about insects or oviposition, would know that the wasp is tapping on the wood, listening, and injecting eggs into a grub underneath the wood, all from these pictures alone? Ludicrous. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-04-10 19:49Z
 * With that said, Support now that caption has been fixed. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-04-10 19:56Z
 * Support With the new caption, its explanatory and wow!y. I would prefer a bigger version if possible. Muhammad (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Formal oppose. Durova makes a reasonable point about stitching the larger sizes together. Meanwhile, I also wonder whether this subject is more clearly illustrated by a drawing, given that that's how it's invariably communicated in biology textbooks. This might address the problem that Tom raised (of course, parts of such a sequence of drawings could be based on these photographs). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)