Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tettigonia viridissima
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2010 at 05:23:58 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tettigonia viridissima, Tettigoniidae
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
SupportWeak support: technically great! Image quality, composition, and such are all very good. I should like to see the article for this species to be expanded though... Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)- weakened support after people below pointed out that nymphs don't have as much EV. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)- Support I love the colour. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
SupportWeak support due to green background --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)- Does nothing for me at thumbnail level: Green bug on green plant against green background. Difficult to see why someone would want to click on it, really. Having said that, at full size it is quite simply amazing. Medium well Support Matthewedwards : Chat 04:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 15:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Low EV. Nymphs are of low diagnostic value. Photos of adult insects are preferred as the primary photo. Also, the bokeh looks weird to me, but that's a bit nit-picky I admit. Kaldari (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Kaldari. Also, there is no article to illustrate yet. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't get the EV rationale. You guys are saying we should not have FLs on duckings or kittens either because they have low EV? I am not arguing to have this picture in the species infobox; but I don't understand what is the problem with having a picture of each one of the stages that the insect goes through. Nergaal (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the photo isn't useful for the article, I'm saying a photo of the adult would be more useful. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying that we should not have FPs on kittens and ducklings? Nergaal (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we do have a kitten article, so that might be an exception. But for others, I would say probably not. Kaldari (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think I'd take this as far as Kaldari, but there is little place for this image in the current article. It should lead with an image of an adult- if there is, later, sourced discussion of the nymph in the article, there may be room for this as a FP. But I must also echo NS- how certain are we that the id is correct? In any case, I've been persuaded- oppose. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming bad faith from a user that has over 100 FPs on commons (and a lot of them on insects) is really ridiculous. A few noms ago users supported an extremely-colored brain coral just because google indicated that the colors might be real, whereas here a photographer with experience identified the species by himself (see this commons FP nom). And if we are not going to feature non-adults at FPs, some of the people opposing here should go and nom for removal whatever babyfish I nominated this month on an article that is one sentence long (or whatever FPs we have on non adults); otherwise opposing here while supporting there would be inconsistent. Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I don't think juveniles are usually ineligible. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I also do not think that juveniles are ineligible, nor am I assuming bad faith, so far as I can see. I'm not sure you understand what I am saying. J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I don't think juveniles are usually ineligible. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming bad faith from a user that has over 100 FPs on commons (and a lot of them on insects) is really ridiculous. A few noms ago users supported an extremely-colored brain coral just because google indicated that the colors might be real, whereas here a photographer with experience identified the species by himself (see this commons FP nom). And if we are not going to feature non-adults at FPs, some of the people opposing here should go and nom for removal whatever babyfish I nominated this month on an article that is one sentence long (or whatever FPs we have on non adults); otherwise opposing here while supporting there would be inconsistent. Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think I'd take this as far as Kaldari, but there is little place for this image in the current article. It should lead with an image of an adult- if there is, later, sourced discussion of the nymph in the article, there may be room for this as a FP. But I must also echo NS- how certain are we that the id is correct? In any case, I've been persuaded- oppose. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we do have a kitten article, so that might be an exception. But for others, I would say probably not. Kaldari (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying that we should not have FPs on kittens and ducklings? Nergaal (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the photo isn't useful for the article, I'm saying a photo of the adult would be more useful. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kaldari. It looks exactly the same as local katydid nymphs. I actually wonder how it was identified so specifically. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Maedin\talk 07:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)