Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Large Painted Locust redux

Large painted locust

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2012 at 15:29:44 (UTC)

Original – The Large Painted Locust, or Schistocerca melanocera, native to the Galapagos Islands and Ecuador

Reason: High quality and EV, good illustration of the article, striking colours. Former nomination fell just short of the 5 supports necessary.
Articles in which this image appears: Schistocerca melanocera
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Benjamint444

Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same as last time. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just does not seem that special. Total stub of an article. Not really supporting discussion of a detailed description for instance and not that different from many other insect FPs. (I know peeps will hate the rationale, but it's good to have different perspectives...I'm a strong article guy, like seeing a connect to content, not just snaps).TCO (Reviews needed) 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but that oppose rationale is not based in the criteria. These things can get fixed, like Marrus orthocanna (article was a stub during the FP process, then was expanded by someone looking for a fairly easy DYK and good picture). If nobody has been bold and expanded it (not always possible, especially with individual species articles), then it will go to Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused, similar to File:Brahmaea wallichii insulata (Brahmeid Moth) wb edit.jpg. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't not support the picture on the grounds of the article being a stub (that is not in the Criteria, (as said above by Crisco).... Does the picture not contribute to the article unless its full length? Is the article not worthy of having a featured picture in it? Just because the article is a stub, that means the picture doesn't give it EV? Dusty777 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to be neener-neener legalistic, I could say that I had given an EV rationale "Not really supporting discussion of a detailed description." But really...I just feel I go more by the spirit of the law than by the letter. It just seems like we are not promoting what is most valuable. Anyhow, changed to comment so as not to make the vote off. And will not leave future comments. Let it go at that.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per nom. Lighting is pretty harsh creating a lot of reflections off bug and harsh lighting on tree, but it's quite well controlled. 'Feels' a bit oversharpened (sadly exif has been stripped making it harder to evaluate). Back antenna unfortunately disappears behind that twig. Article needs development, but EV is there. --jjron (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The picture is excellent, but it does need some tuning (per jjron). Dusty777 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 out of 5 required supports Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]