Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pisaura mirabilis2

Pisaura mirabilis

 * Reason:A very high quality photograph with excellent resolution. Have added#2 to the FPC title so I wouldn't have to overwrite an older (failed) FPC nom of the same species.
 * Articles this image appears in:Pisaura mirabilis
 * Creator:Richard Bartz
 * Support as nominator --Sasata (in WikiCup) (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Sharp, encyclopedic, good depth of field.  Durova Charge! 19:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good DOF, sharp, good lighting, good EV --Muhammad (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Yawn --Tufacave (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support to overwrite oppose by Tufacave.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per above, especially Mbz1.  Zoo Fari  01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Question How big is he/she? The article doesn't talk about sizes and I've never seen that plant before that I recall - Plantago lanceolata gives the massive range of 10–40 cm for the flower stems so that doesn't help. Mfield (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * According to one website, the male is 10–13 mm, the female 12–15 mm. Sasata (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is the fact that the spider is off-center an issue? I think the actual spider looks great (I was wondering about it being quite small-looking, but I now see it is a small species) but the composition has thrown me a little. J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Nice clear picture.Terri G (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: As much as I hate looking at spiders, this is a superb image. The whole of the spider is so clear and sharp.  For what it's worth (being not much of a photographer or reviewer), I actually like the subject slightly off-centre.  Not for everything; but it works here.  So many macros/close-ups are dead centre, which can become a little dull.   Mae din \talk 20:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 01:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)