Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Calcoris affinis

Calcoris affinis[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2010 at 08:10:22 (UTC)

Reason: Thought this was worth a second nomination- the first nom didn't really receive much attention. Decent, high res shot of a bug identified to species level; clear EV, lovely composition.
Articles in which this image appears: Calocoris
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Darius Bauzys

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It received enough attention, but half of it (in weight) was opposes. Tell it like it is, please. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're gonna demand I "tell it like it is", you can at least state the numbers more clearly. A third of people opposed, two thirds supported. Had this had one more support vote, it would have passed. In any case, does it really matter? I feel it's worth another go, so here I am. If you're still not convinced, you are, of course, welcome to oppose. J Milburn (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not receiving attention is a message, too: This is not interesting enough to bother voting. --Dschwen 14:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree with Dschwen, I still like this pic and overall think it's feature-quality, though the bg is a bit weird. --I'ḏ♥One 14:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh?! You voted last time. You'd only be in a position to disagree if you hadn't. --Dschwen 19:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure how that means he can't disagree with you? J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dschwen's a cholerophile who'd web-argue with the nubs of his elbows long after wearing down his fingers before he'd ever let me have the last word (don't even think of calling that a WP:BITE after the primula nom), but still I disagree because I do think this is interesting enough to vote on, whether in favor, oppose or just a comment or critique. I prove my disagreement by having voted on this in both cases. --I'ḏ♥One 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - So.... I supposedly really love it? I rest my case. --Dschwen 12:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well my statement was if people don't vote they probably didn't care. IdLO disagrees with a different statement, one that I didn't make, namely "the picture is not interesting enough". Yet he wrote I disagree with Dschwen, combined with the rude personal attack, it seems he is just out to make a point. --Dschwen 21:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree with people here all the time, they disagree with me, they disagree with each other, everyone is disagreed with eventually, that's no reason to start a never-ending argument. I specified your SN not to pick on you but to reference my comment, which was a disagreement with your opinion that the image is not interesting enough to vote on. You 're also wrong because apparently if this had gotten one more vote the last time it would've been promoted, meaning that a majority of people, though not a big enough majority, agreed with me that it is in fact interesting. =) And you would know all of that if you followed policy. --I'ḏ ♥One 21:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "Policy" seems only convenient to you when finger-pointing. When you are spewing your own audacities you seem to forget about it entirely. --Dschwen 00:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ooh, look who's got the personal attacks now! I don't understand how your glass house still stands when you throw so many stones from inside it. --I'ḏ ♥One 02:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing has changed since the previous failed nomination. Still glary, still low resolution on the body, weird halo on one antenna. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- As before. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the picture deserves I elaborate a little more on my support. This is IMO one of the best insect macro shots in the last months, combining good technical quality, superb composition and high encyclopaedic value. Nothing substancial was invoked in the last nomination to decline promotion and it is worth a new try. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Early close This already is an FP? Gut Monk (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It's a FP on Commons, but it failed its last nomination here. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh jeeze, you are exactly right. I treated both as the same, until now. Gut Monk (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The subject is eye-catching, and that's a quality we like in FP's. The article is a little under developed, but I think this image will draw the attention it needs to be further developed. Gut Monk (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The glare is not really much of an issue as both color and texture of the bug are still clearly visible. Although I'd like to see higher resolution overall it seems a bit unfair to focus on the body alone. The bugs long antennae should not be cut off, and showing them uses quite a bit of image area. Composition is beautiful and the soft oof background makes the subject stand out nicely - no wonder it is featured on commons. The article it is used in is merely stub, which makes me think if the nomination here on en.wp doesn't come too early. --Dschwen 13:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The green background is too much of a deal-breaker here for me. Greg L (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find the green background pleasing and expected. The image makes it on quality, though it is somewhat shaky on EV. Cowtowner (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Genus article needs to be more than 1 sentence to give proper context and EV, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Calocoris affinis.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]