Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysopa sp. AF 1.jpg

Chrysopa sp.

Original - Chrysopa sp.

Reason: Don't seem to be many good lacewing pictures about. The relatively wide crop was needed to fit the antennae in.
Articles this image appears in: Chrysopidae
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support flowers are a bit distracting IMO but nice species. Never seen one before. --Muhammad(talk) 15:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It's beautiful and has high enough EV, but the flowers are too distracting. I can barely see the insect, especially before reading the caption and realizing that the flowers are not the focus of the photo. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 16:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition, demonstrates the natural camouflage of translucent wings. Durova³⁴⁹ 20:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The flowers are very distracting, per above. I actually first thougt Chrysopa is the flower. I know it isn't possible to crop much because of the antennae, but maybe even a small crop would help. Elekhh (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Too many things going on in the photo, but I agree with Durova's opinion that the translucent wings on flower petals make the picture interesting.--Caspian blue 02:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, reluctantly. It's beautiful, but I think that too much of this is flowers, unfortunately. It's like taking a portrait in front of the Notre Dame - you're unsure which to look at. Something like File:Chrysopa oculata.jpg would do a much better job of illustrating, and should really be the lead image in that article. I feel awful opposing an image as beautiful and as skillfully shot as this one... I would suggest trying a tighter crop on the right, which would do more to make the insect the focus of the image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can only really crop slightly before one starts cutting off antennae. iirc I have shots that are framed more tightly, but it looked odd with the antennae out of the frame. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh you definitely need the antennae there, or I'd be saying it's a pity they're cut off! I do think it's possible to just take a little off to bring the Chrysopa closer to the centre of the frame, without cutting into the antennae. There is nothing wrong with off-centred photos normally, but in this case the background is so strong. Mostlyharmless (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, but if you can identify the flowers and add it to the article, I'll change to support. Zoo Fari^Boo! 06:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would be hard. Asteraceae is already a little heavy with photos, as you might expect. Mostlyharmless (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd agree with Raeky and the genus. I don't think I could narrow it down further without playing guessing games. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The flower is clearly in the Asteraceae family and likely in the Aster genus. Although the flowers are a strong element of the photograph the insect is clearly visible and I support it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, lovely picture. The flowers add to it, excellent focus on the lacewing. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It should be focused on the insect. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 10:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'd love to fully support such a striking image but I'm not sure it makes for a good lead image at Chrysopidae, ironically enough due to its good camouflage. That and unfortunate lack of space at Asteraceae conspire to reduce value as it stands. Also, any idea why this displays with boosted saturation as a preview/fullsize image? I prefer the more subtle thumbnail... --mikaul^talk 18:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Mostlyharmless. Kaldari (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Due to flowers.--Silversmith Hewwo 07:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and positives brought up in discussion. upstate NYer 01:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pseudomallada edwardsi AF 1.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]