Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Fly April 2008-12.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Stomorhina lunata

Original - The Stomorhina lunata is a fly of the Calliphoridae family (Blow flies), quite often misidentified because of the unusual band pattern in the abdomen, resembling a hoverfly. This specimen is a male and was found in Lisbon
Original - The Stomorhina lunata is a fly of the Calliphoridae family (Blow flies), quite often misidentified because of the unusual band pattern in the abdomen, resembling a hoverfly. This specimen is a male and was found in Lisbon
Edit 1 - Dry flower cloned out from the foreground
Edit 1 - Dry flower cloned out from the foreground
Edit 2 - Dry flower cloned out from the foreground
Edit 2 - Dry flower cloned out from the foreground
Alternative view
Alternative view
Reason
Very detailed and high quality depiction of a non-typical blow-fly, adding value to the articles
Articles this image appears in
Stomorhina lunata, Calliphoridae
Creator
Joaquim Alves Gaspar
  • Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but that brown, dry flower is spoiling the picture for me (even in full size). --Janke | Talk 13:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Original - Neutral Edit I have to agree, rest of the image is good though. Regarding the edit, I have never seen a fly standing on an object with it's hind l;eg out like that. The removal of the flower has improved aesthetics but harmed the integrity of the subject. You just wouldn't see a fly do this. Capital photographer (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And what about a bumblebee ?... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That is a common "pose" for a bee, it's also a logical image showing a bee with wings captured but in motion holding the bee up to the flower. The image of a fly shows the fly standing on a leaf with its wings held in to its body and not moving yet the back of the fly is not supported and it's hind leg is stretched out. Capital photographer (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see how the dry flower spoils the picture.Muhammad(talk) 14:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Info - OK, I went back, politely asked the fly to remove the flower and shot again ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original, oppose edit. Per FPC8. Kaldari (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral original, oppose edit per Kaldari. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose original, strong oppose edit Damn dry flower. Mangostar (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Info - I like this picture a lot and it will be very difficult to find another specimen so colaborative. Because the problem with the original appears to be only asthetical, I'm nominating a 2nd alternative with the dry flower was partially cloned out. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original, oppose edits I don't really see the problem with an insect sitting on a bit of dead plant and I don't find its presence distracting at all. The edits are quite skillfully done, but I feel it necessary to oppose them as per Kaldari. Matt Deres (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess for me the problem was that at thumb size I was briefly confused about whether the flower was a part of the fly. Mangostar (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Edit 1 looks incredibly unnatural. --SharkfaceT/C 19:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Info - Please consider also the alternative view. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I still prefer the original; I think more of the bug is in focus there than in the alternate. Matt Deres (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original, oppose edits. This is reality, this is nature for you... Lycaon (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 09:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)