Support as nominator (preference for original) --Fir0002 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You've put this as the taxobox image in spider. Do you really think it's the best spider photo on Wikipedia? I personally think you yourself have created a number of better ones, and honestly don't find that it's particularly engaging as the lead image for that article. --jjron (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do think it's the best that I've taken for the article. To me this scene really typifies spiders. It's got a classic orb weaver web (and captured prey - which I think is important as that is the whole point of a web) and of course an orb weaver spider - a species which again to me really typifies spiders with its colouration, large abdomen, small thorax and extended legs. I know this is hardly an authoritative source, but a quick search in MS Office clipart online [1] in some way support this "generic" spider. --Fir0002 10:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After initial placement of this image another editor replaced it for another, then fir reverted. One user also had preference for the original (at thumb size) at Talk:Spider#Proposed_replacement_for_lead_image. I'd also be concerned about the stability of article placement at present. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One editor with 188 edits to the article expressed a preference for the previous image, another with 31 edits to the article removed it. With the current showing it seems unlikely to survive in the article, as currently positioned, for long. Considering that the uploader admitted to beingbold when inserting the image I'm surprised they reverted its removal without further discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have gone with further discussion if I'd been reverted back to the original lead (the one before I replaced it). Anyway out of curiosity how did you get the page-edit statistics Guest9999? --Fir0002 10:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually used the "revision history statistics" link that's given at the top of a page's history ([2] in this case), although the link given above works just as well and has more detail. Guest9999 (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And back to the original issue, I find it a bit messy as a taxobox image. The taxobox image for spider should clearly show a typical morphology, rather than trying to show any specific behaviour. As you say this spider may be reasonable to use in that context in terms of body shape and colouration, but they're not hard to find sitting cleanly in the middle of their undamaged web with their eight legs out and clearly displayed, and taken from above rather than below would also serve better for the taxobox (after all, how do most people view spiders?). In this shot it's taken from below, the legs are not all cleanly visible, the web is in disrepair, and the prey that you put emphasis on is blurry and indistinct. I don't really think it works that well. --jjron (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the centre of the webs isn't particularly neat - check out this infosheet. The problem of course with taking from above is that you're bound to have DOF issues. Also you'd lose out on the prey - which while not in sharp focus (except for alt 2) is still there. It's actually relatively rare (at least in my experience) to find them out with their prey during the day as they typically only come out at night when there aren't any birds watching. --Fir0002 10:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On that note a current featured picture of the same type of spider () would maybe work better as a general illustration of a spider. Guest9999 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative 1 only. The original lacks snap, it just isn't that interesting to me. There are many better images of spiders as far as composition. Alternative 1 is one of those images. Omnibus (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
) would maybe work better as a general illustration of a spider. Guest9999 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
