Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sydney flatwing04.jpg

Sydney Flatwing

 * Reason:High quality image of a Sydney Flatwing, which unusually for a damselfly holds its wings perpendicular to its body. Here it is seen perched on rushes on the banks of Swifts Creek
 * Articles this image appears in:Megapodagrionidae and Dragonfly
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User has <8,500 edits Greener Cactus (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point being? Muhammad (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support Wonderful control of depth of field, background and lighting, good definition and contrast Capital photographer (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support good picture, well done. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per all the above. Durova Charge! 20:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 *  Support Oppose. Both Pengo and Becky have a point. The other dragonfly image does set a much higher standard. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nice shot, but I'm not a fan of the double shadows. —Pengo 03:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent detail. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-07-14 13:50Z
 * Support Shadows are a minor thing to me; the image conveys excellent detail of this animal. Fletcher (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice, but theres four big dust spots on the fly! ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ends of the wings appear out of focus. There isn't enough detail on the thorax/abdomen, the reflection makes it difficult to clearly recognize the segmentation of the body.  The structure of the eyes are unapparent. At first glance the green of the plants stand out more than the insect itself. The other image (Image:Sympetrum flaveolum - side (aka).jpg) on the dragonfly article is already featured and I would say deserves to be more so than this particular image.  Based on the previous works of the creator, another image of this organism of better quality could probably be made.Becky Sayles (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I withdraw my comparison to the other image of a dragonfly, but maintain opposition based on other issues. Additionally, the encyclopedic value of this image in the dragonfly article is limited.  It appears next to a section about confusing dragonflies and damselflies (apparently we all made this mistake), but the key feature described is the position of the wings, which makes this image somewhat confusing even with appropriate captioning. Perhaps in the Megapodagrionidae article it adds value, but it is also difficult to tell be cause the article is nearly empty.  The first in damselfly (Image:Common blue damselfly02.jpg) has lower technical quality, but does a much better job illustrating features of the organism. As for the majority of other images on wikipedia, most are pretty lousy.  But this one's just not as good as it should be to be featured.  If we upload more and more crappy pictures, then by comparison all the ones here should be featured. The biggest part of WIAFP that seems appropriate for this picture is "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. " and I don't believe it does. Becky Sayles (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If photographers would at least create the tiniest of stubs when they upload images of new subjects, it would help an awful lot. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Becky. Nice image, but not the best.Dwayne Reed (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per CapitalPhotographer. Clegs (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient detail Thisglad (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - pales in comparison to the other dragonfly FP. It's ok, but not the best of the best. pschemp | talk 19:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per pschemp. Greener Cactus (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Good details of a unique damselfly. Muhammad (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Above votes comparing this image to Aka's fine dragonfly picture are completely unfair and unjustifiable by WIAFP - should all building photos be judged against one of Diliff's amazing super pano's??!!! No! Judge the image on it's own qualities/faults - and if you can't find any faults for goodness sake dont invent any by making comparisons with one of the best dragonfly pictures on wiki (note dragonfly rather than damselfly!!). --Fir0002 07:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And just to preempt a #3 claim from WIAFP - you're looking at it from the wrong direction. Compare the image with the majority of other images available on wiki to determine whether it is amongst the best. --Fir0002 08:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support nice work. Mfield (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great detail on the legs, shows the spikes nicely. Good to see a damselfly, there are too many dragonfly images! I love the detail and angle you have of the wing/body joints. The eye's are classic damselfly and captured well. GameKeeper (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. I'll admit there isn't a whole lot of detail, one wing isn't in focus, and there are double shadows, but when you take the image holistically, it deserves the feature. It's encyclopedic and visually pleasing. Nautica Shad es  22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)