Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hoverfly07.jpg

Hoverfly
As mentioned in the nomination of this image, it wasn't perhaps the best image to lead the Hoverfly article, so accordingly I took this picture which I feel illustrates a Hoverfly better.


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 23:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Nice shots. Nice colours and composition.  The first one is nicer because that spikey thing doesnt distract.  --Midnight Rider 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The spiky thing is the remnant of a flower, and makes it more encyclopedic as hoverflies are major pollinators. However ... blown highlights actualy eliminate detail in this version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Debivort (talk • contribs).

Support First The first image allows the viewer to distinguish between Hoverfly and its surronding more easily than the second image. I feel that the blown highlights on the second image reduce its quality. Krowe 08:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support first version The first one is great, but the second has blown highlights on the wings. | A ndonic O  Talk 23:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support first per Andonico. Debivort 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support first per above. Joe 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support first per AndonicO. ⁪froth T C  03:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support first per Andonico. I also think the stick puts more focus on the hoverfly (good in my opinion). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support First Yeah I would actually oppose if the only choice was the second. The first one is very clear, and highly enc. Arjun  22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support first. Compositionally speaking, the first brings more attention to the subject (diagonals in the background go opposite the diagonal of the stick, vs. the second, which is just floating). Plus, there are blown highlights on the second. -- Tewy  03:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support first. The twig color gives more contrast with the fly. The flower in the alternative is too dark. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either, slight preference for 'alternative'. The blown highlights on the wings don't worry me here and I find the angle slightly better and more encyclopaedic on the second. --jjron 12:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support first. — Remark: As this picture features on an article on Syrphidae (biology), should not more information be given about the species depicted? I'm almost sure it is a male Melangyna viridiceps (Macquart, 1847). It is often referred to in Australia as the Common Hoverfly and belongs to the subfamily Syrphinae. I've never been to Australia though and I'm more of a carcinologist than an entomologist, so somebody should confirm. Lycaon 14:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original It is awesome how clear it is. What is a Hoverlfy, and how come I've never heard of them!!! Oh well once agian nice shot. 02:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Original Quite good. It's encyclopedic and technically flawless. And I now know what Hoverflies are.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support first. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support first one I'm not familiar to contrast and quality and what not, so I'll just say the first one is a spectacular shot. So is the second one, but I prefer the first. -- Tohru  Honda13 Sign me! 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either, preference for first due to lack of distractions. Excellent photography, excellent subject. Opabinia regalis 06:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support first. I wanna make such great photos, too. :) - Darwinek 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Version 1. Although the second picture is at a better angle, the quality of the first is significantly better. Nautica Shad e  s  13:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)