Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Macroxiphus sp cricket.jpg

Macroxiphus sp cricket

 * Reason:Looks like an ant? Look again. A 4mm katydid mimicking an ant, because ants are of the most feared insects. Good quality and EV. For such a small subject, DOF is also quite good.
 * Articles this image appears in:Mimicry, Tettigoniidae, Macroxiphus
 * Creator:Muhammad


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Even though there's a little bit of blur on the antennae but I don't think it can be helped at all and it doesn't detract from the EV.Terri G (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Very interesting. I recommend you crop a bit off the left, to center the subject. smooth0707  (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Man, you have some awesome insect photos. and again, it could do with a crop from the left. still an awesome photo - The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Got the wow factor, and good EV. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 04:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support: All the 6 legs and both antennae are out of focus. I still support because of 'wow' it gives to me. - DSachan (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Noooo, please don't crop it! It's perfect just as it is.  What a brilliant capture of bizarre behaviour in the animal kingdom, :-)  Mae din \talk 20:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support High EV. Lycaon (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Less than a megapixel on the subject. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent point... was thinking that myself. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 23:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A megapixel is not the min requirement. The environment the insect is captured in has EV as well. --Muhammad (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't, but its still pretty small. You'd still be able to gather that this was a leaf with a tighter image. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A tighter crop I made was around 1000px2. --Muhammad (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose A little too much blur and too little detail for my tastes. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As above. I don't like the angle and composition either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the most encyclopedic angle as it clearly shows how the katydid resembles the ant and how it is also slightly structurally different. --Muhammad (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support per nom. Size is OK by me. DOF issues are a bit distracting, but my main concern is no full species ID. --jjron (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Subject is small in the image, but image is of high quality and while DOF is an issue, head and thorax (and hind legs) are almost entirely in focus. Supports offer good arguments. Consensus is nearly met (depending on how you define "weak" in numbers). Therefore: ~   ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 05:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)