Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red rock crab

Grapsus grapsus
Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2011 at 10:22:14 (UTC)
 * Reason:Our selection of featured crustaceans is pretty small. This is good resolution and acceptably sharp.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Grapsus grapsus, list of tautonyms
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals
 * Creator:Lieutenant Elizabeth Crapo (US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration)


 * Support as nominator -- Mae din\ talk 10:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Color here is quite vivid, but this seems to agree with other examples, especially considering the very dark surrounding rock. Nice find.  Jujutacular  talk 11:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to update, I still support this nomination based on the image's current use in the body of Grapsus grapsus. Seems to be stable there now.  Jujutacular  talk 00:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice, and good EV. I like the colour contrast as well. SMasters (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as uploador--Citron (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment While this is technically a very good photograph, it is not the best illustration of the species for that article. I have twice had to revert the change in image, which I now realise was made purely to further this nomination. One of the most notable traits of this crab is its agility and activity; showing a crab cowering in fear from the photographer is much less representative than an image which shows the crab in a more typical, active posture. I have looked for other articles where this image might be suited, and have not had much success. If Galápagos Wildlife were a half-way decent article, there may be room for it there (the photograph was taken in the Galápagos, after all), or there might be room for it in a "fauna of the Baja California peninsula" or "fauna of the Gulf of California" if such articles existed. While I would love to see another crustacean picture promoted, forcing an image in where better illustrations already exist is not the way to achieve it. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: I have added the image to list of tautonyms, where the crab's characteristics are not relevant. I made sure that my edit summary clarified that the image was being changed to help this nomination. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your explanation of why you removed the image from the species article; I do not, however, appreciate the explicit suggestion that I added this image to the article only to further this nomination, and I certainly did not "force" it in. Do be more gracious with your assumptions.  A check of my contributions, from two days to two years ago, will show that I add lots of good images to articles and never nominate them.  The only reason I replaced the infobox image with this one is because the resolution and sharpness are better and, I think, it is a clearer illustration of the chelae.  I do not know anything about crab posture, but nothing in its pose here suggests to me that it is "cowering" in fear.  I also, as I often do, had a look at the last dozen or so changes in the article to check if the same image I was adding had been previously removed or replaced for some reason.  And, it was someone else who changed back to this image after your initial reversal yesterday; I wouldn't have done so (though "I prefer the previous image" is hardly sufficient as an encyclopaedic edit summary and I would have questioned you on it).
 * Having said that, withdraw. It does not have enough EV in list of tautonyms and I don't have time to research crab posture and confirm or argue Stemonitis's information.  Since nominating the image it has been pointed out to me that the saturation is blown and I have not, from the jpg, been able to recover lost detail sufficiently and was contemplating withdrawal anyway.   Mae din\ talk 08:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW we are meant to wait a week these days anyway. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't withdraw it too soon. It has been reinserted at Grapsus grapsus, and while I have once again restored the original taxobox image as being the better illustration of the species for that purpose, I see no reason why we can't have both images in the article. I also can't see any problem with the saturation, but my understanding of the technical side is rather limited. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Waw! They talk about me here. So, as Maedin says, I submitted the image in the taxobox because I don't understand the reason to prefer the previous image. For me the Crab posture is very well, the colors is natural and the picture is remarkable for its quality. The previous picture isn't really better, it's the same posture for me... --Citron (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw my withdrawal. I do still like it and it sits well in the body of the species article.   Mae din\ talk 14:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)