Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Phidippus mystaceus jumping spider

Phidippus mystaceus jumping spider

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 20:25:56 (UTC)

Original - Macrophotograph of an adult female Phidippus mystaceus jumping spider found in Oklahoma.

Reason: Glorious closeup, makes the spider look like an alien, or a teddy bear. Bright background colour unusual. Reminds me a bit of the Honey Monster.
Articles in which this image appears: Phidippus_mystaceus Jumping_spider
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arachnids
Creator: User:Opoterser

Support as nominator --Mr badcrumble (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it. Greg L (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! hasa wow factor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sold that this image is up to our standards for insect and arachnids. The DOF is shallow and the resolution is limited. The other FP on the jumping spider page is of a considerably higher quality. Cowtowner (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely has wow, but it's too small. --Avenue (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm afraid I have to agree. I am willing to ignore the size requirements when appropriate, but, despite the rather fascinating subject, this does not come up to the standard we've come to expect from our multitude of (for want of a better term) creepy-crawly pictures. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a non-technical photography buff, I like this better than , which is overcropped, IMO. I think this has astounding creepy-crawly wow!--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Noodle snacks (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why isn't this picture, which is an FP, even in the article. Is it the same species?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Images are supposed to illustrate the subject. Unless the subject is "Things that look like aliens from a certain angle" I don't see how this qualifies. I'm not even convinced that it belongs on WP at all.--RDBury (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support EV definitely there, DOF is good, resolution not an issue yet. Why everybody gets hung up on captions and rationales, I will never understand. Anyway, if some of you would be willing to use or upload the rest of these images, that will be time well spent. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think it's particularly clear exactly what we're looking at. Noodle Snacks' ultramacro might have very limited DOF, but at least you can see a little more clearly the individual features/limbs etc. This one looks more like a furry Jabba the Hutt to me. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support the picture itself is very good but I have to agree with the comments above. It needs to significantly add to a significant article. Haljackey (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not quite correct. It needs to significantly add to *any* article. It's not for FPC to decide whether a subject is notable enough for an article - the process for that is AfD. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can someone explain to me why the featured pictures ( and ) are not in the Phidippus_mystaceus article and only one is in Jumping_spider, while this one is in both?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are around 5000 *known* species of jumping spider, of which P. mystaceus is one. HTH Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Dilif´s comment. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]