Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Dungeness crab face closeup.jpg

Dungeness crab closeup

 * Reason:Proof of alien life on earth! Just kidding, it's the face of a dungeness crab. It's sharp, detailed, well-composed, and all the important parts of the crab face are in focus (with the known caveat of focusing in macro shots).
 * Articles this image appears in:Dungeness crab, Crab, Rostrum (anatomy)
 * Creator:Kevin Cole


 * Support as nominator  howcheng  {chat} 17:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Technically very well done image, but if you told me to look at it and tell what it is, I don't think I would have said "crab". I would have given a Strong Support, if the image showed a little more of its body. diego_pmc (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then you wouldn't have gotten as much facial detail. In the context of the article, it works fine IMHO -- there's already a full-body shot there.  howcheng  {chat} 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as a well done macro of a very strange looking crab! (Oh eyestalks, oh eyestalks, where are you? I didn't know they were so short as to be not noticeable as a stalk in dungeness crabs.  It does look the eyestalks are probably just laying down and that they do normally stick up, but I'm more used to eyestalks like  this.) - Enuja (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose My personal feeling is that in order for images like this to meet the EV requirement for FP's, they've got to help illustrate something important about the animal the reader isn't otherwise getting. Yes, the face is in great detail here, and it's a good shot. But the article mentions nothing about the face or eyes; I don't know from the image whether there's something special that I'm supposed to be seeing or whether it's just a cool shot. If the face is a pretty unremarkable part of the animal, and this image leaves out parts the article discusses relatively extensively, like the claws and shell, I don't see the EV as particularly high. At the very least it needs a caption that will answer the "what should I be looking for?" question. Sing  Cal  01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support high quality photo with lots of detail. Detail=information, in this case about the crab -> EV. de Bivort 03:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support For some reason, fugly isn't a valid reason to oppose ;-). While it's true there are parts that lack sharpness at full size, this thing is magnified to a huge extent. When I zoom out on it so that it's only, say, twice life size I find pretty much everything is tolerably clear. I would prefer a whole-crab shot with this same pixel count, but then DOF issues would really wreak havoc. Matt Deres (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment AFAIK, the 'face' of this crab isn't remarkable as crabs go. Although I hear the objections re. lack of sound reasoning for the close-up, I'd have supported a properly captioned entry at crab, where such detail would be highly valuable. --mikaultalk 13:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I disagree that the "face isn't remarkable as crabs go" this photo really helps illustrate what the face of a crab looks like, which must photos don't.--CPacker (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of that remark was that there is no mention in the article of the face of the Dungeness crab, nor of it being so unusual as to warrant a close-up. If it was in the crab article, it might have decent enc value. --mikaultalk 10:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With some research, I added this to crab and rostrum (anatomy).  howcheng  {chat} 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)