Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Holoplatys semiplanata.jpg

Holoplatys semiplanata
A high quality and enc image of the jumping spider Holoplatys semiplanata. Image was taken in Swifts Creek, Victoria in January 2007. As you can see in the version with the scale the specimen is approx 12mm in length.

Appears in Holoplatys

*Weak Support Scale A bit more DOF issues than I would like to see in this image, however overall good enough for FP, and I do think that the scale adds to the enc value and is very tastefully/artistically done. Zakolantern 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Either Self Nom. --Fir0002 04:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Fir, some day you have to come to America and photograph some of our bugs.   Spikebrennan 14:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind me asking how you produced the scale, half a year after taking the picture. What input besides guessing did you have? Did you use an average specimen size from the article? (Not mentioned). Did you keep the specimen (or find a new one)? Whats the estimated precision of the scale? If people oppose based on lack of scale I'd be slightly irritated if pulling a scale out of thin air suddenly warrants a support. That is generally speaking of course, I'm not accusing the creator of any such things, just asking... --Dschwen 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They're quite common and I just found another one and measured it roughly with a ruler. I wouldn't claim that it's terrible precise, probably good to +/- 2 mm something like that. --Fir0002 07:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The DOF is fairly low and the pic is not in an article (unless you call a list of red links an article). I'd rather wait featuring this until an article has been written. Or are you speculating on the the article being written because the pic gets featured? Maybe we should change the FP criteria then and remove the Adds value to an article and It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page lines. --Dschwen 17:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this DOF obsession is getting a bit ridiculous, you can see all aspects of the spider, the mildly OOF back legs are mirror images of the in focus front legs. In short everything is there which you need to understand what this animal looks like. It is entirely because of the low amount of written information on that article that the image is so valuable - it really does fulfill the 1000 words saying. And you're twisting the It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page - that criteria refers to the accuracy of the picture, and what can you say contradicts the accuracy of this photo? However the pacify you I've also included the image in the parent Jumping Spider article. If you are still unhappy with this, may I point out the minor role that Image:Calopteryx virgo male.jpg plays in it's stub. --Fir0002 07:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. (but prefer scale).  Thanks Dschwen - I hadn't noticed that the bug wasn't in a real article.  That combines with my earlier comment about the DOF issue changes my vote.  Note that I am fine with the scale, because it should be simple to find out how big this bug normally is (assuming good faith, he could have just walked outside, picked one up, and got its size from that if nothing else).  To add enc value I don't care how big this particular specimen was, I want to know how big this bug usually is.  Zakolantern 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Zakolantern for assuming good faith in regards to size, the entomologist I contact to get it identified says that this is a typical size for this species. Please reconsider your rationale behind opposing based on the article it appears in (read above) --Fir0002 07:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional support (w/ scale) The words "scale in" aren't needed (it should just say "millimetres (mm)"). Why is there a white vertical bar over the back leg? If these minor issues ("Scale in" and white bar) are resolved I lend my support. (The DOF is good enough for me. The spider is only 12 mm! and the poor focus areas are mirrored anyway. The stubby article doesn't bother me either, as the potential for an expanded article is obvious). I'd probably left-align the word "millimetres" too, but I'm not fussed. —Pengo 01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that white bar is just another hair. --TotoBaggins 22:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Someone finally realizes the minute scale this pic was taken on and how it affects DOF!! I agree with Toto, the line is probably a broken hair or something like that. I can clone it out if you want. I wont be able to change the scale stuff until I get back home Saturday night (I'm in melbourne attending a Chemical Engineering program at monash uni at the moment) as I don't have the files with me. --Fir0002 07:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Uploaded an edited version of scale, didn't clone out the white hair, but can if you want --Fir0002 01:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Fir, don't you have a higher-res version of this you could upload? I like to get down and dirty with these bugs.  --TotoBaggins 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have higher resolution, but this is all I'm willing to upload to wikipedia under the commercial license options they provide us. The day Wikipedia realizes it's an encyclopedia and not a stock site where anyone can come and take my hard work for their gain is the day I'll being uploading 8 MP files. --Fir0002 07:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All credit to you for carrying on providing such a generous supply. You could be forgiven for uploading much smaller versions. ~ Veledan • Talk 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Nice image, dude. Sidious1701(messages)☻ 02:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Scale version 2 Either version is okay. --Mad Max 05:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either. I don't think the DOF is an issue, and it does add value to the article imo: until more has been written, this picture is the main source of information. I must say I think [[Image:Sandalodes jumping spider.jpg|30px]] is cuter :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Scale version 2 - In short, I was rereading this debate, especially Fir0002's comments, and I changed my vote. EDIT: Specified which scale.  Zakolantern 06:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)