Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Calocoris affinis

Calocoris affinis edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 09:47:11 (UTC)

 
Original - Calocoris affinis, a true bug in the Miridae family, upon Knautia arvensis.
Reason
High quality image of an insect identified to species level, used well in the genus article.
Articles in which this image appears
Calocoris
FP category for this image
Insects
Creator
Darius Bauzys
  • Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Perfect photo -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the green background was a poor idea here. It detracts sufficiently from the image to not merit FP status, IMO. Greg L (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the background is just green because this photo was taken in a field =\ Other than that the insect and the bud are in very good resolution. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- One the best macro shots in the last times. Excellent quality and detail, nice composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's too much reflection on the back of the front wing (covering the abdomen). It's not completely blown, but I wasn't able to salvage it to any meaningful extent. It's a fairly common bug, so I'd suggest a retake. The article about the plant already has a high quality image showing the flower as its taxobox image, and it's a short article, but once expanded, this might find a place in it, as I don't (yet) see another image that shows the bud. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting you should say that- I'd call this little creature a shield bug if I were to find it myself, and the thing I always noticed about shield bugs was how shiny they are. I actually considered the shine before my nomination, but decided that, for that reason, it wasn't necessarily a negative. (Also, can I ask what makes you think it's a common species? We don't have an article on the species, and didn't have one on the genus until I wrote it.) J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]