Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Clerid beetle04.jpg
During the bushfires we had to cut down a number of young eucalypts around our house, and after we did so we needed to drag the branches etc a distance from the house where they wouldn't burn. Anyway to cut a long story short the next day when we went to move the branches all of them were swarming with these critters who actively patrolled up and down a branch chasing off any other beetle it saw. Had nasty looking mandibles and crazy yellow antennae which vibrated wildly so I was pretty nervous when I took the pix - bit disappointed when I found out it was only a beetle, I thought it was some kind of wasp! Anyway, nice shot, good comp and excellent sharpness.
Image appears:
Beetle, Cleroidea, Cleridae
- Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Comment Are those pale spots on the body missing bits or normal coloring? In the full resolution image, they kinda look like damage, although they probably aren't, I'd like to be confident that this is a normal looking specimen. Also,The tips of the (amazingly yellow!) antenna are out of focus, which is a little bit of a problem.I don't like the caption, because the identification of the limb makes me think about the tree, which makes me wonder what angle the beetle is at. Your further explination here clears it all up, but that's not in an extended caption on the image page.Please add some of the information about the circumstances of the picture taking to the image page, as the angle of the branch is confusing. Enuja 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC) editedEnuja 21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes those markings are entirely natural - all the beetles had similar spots. As for the caption, please, please keep current with the WP:FPC talk page! As discussed here, extended captions suitable for POTD are not a requirement for a FPC nom! If you don't like the caption feel free to edit it, we're looking for excellent photos here, not excellent captions! --Fir0002 22:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're looking for the best content possible, and with pictures, that includes the associated descriptive information.--ragesoss 03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I must have been away when they changed it to Featured Content Candidates, but then again my browser doesn't seem to have updated either... You can't just make up your own rules, as discussed hereand here there is no valid reason to oppose an image based on caption. --Fir0002 09:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't opposing just because of the caption, I was trying to be constructive in building a good caption and enough information to build good POTD captions. Also, please don't be too confrontational about comments about captions; criteria #8 on Wikipedia:featured picture criteria hasn't been edited yet. Enuja 21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I must have been away when they changed it to Featured Content Candidates, but then again my browser doesn't seem to have updated either... You can't just make up your own rules, as discussed hereand here there is no valid reason to oppose an image based on caption. --Fir0002 09:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're looking for the best content possible, and with pictures, that includes the associated descriptive information.--ragesoss 03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes those markings are entirely natural - all the beetles had similar spots. As for the caption, please, please keep current with the WP:FPC talk page! As discussed here, extended captions suitable for POTD are not a requirement for a FPC nom! If you don't like the caption feel free to edit it, we're looking for excellent photos here, not excellent captions! --Fir0002 22:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support Wow. Super useful picture! Jellocube27 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I used your nomination story to expand the caption some. It still needs a link and/or bibliographic information for where a viewer could verify the species identification.--ragesoss 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can you point me to the guidelines/rules which specify the need to add bibliographic information to an image? Do a search in google for the species if you're that keen. --Fir0002 09:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the rules require it, I'm saying it would be useful. I did a Google search, and I didn't doubt the correct identification in the first place. What source did you use to identify it?--ragesoss 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- CSIRO Entomology department --Fir0002 10:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the rules require it, I'm saying it would be useful. I did a Google search, and I didn't doubt the correct identification in the first place. What source did you use to identify it?--ragesoss 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can you point me to the guidelines/rules which specify the need to add bibliographic information to an image? Do a search in google for the species if you're that keen. --Fir0002 09:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support and subsequent comment:
Very interesting image. Which article(s) do(es) this image improve? ~Steptrip 02:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC) - Strong Support I don't even have to vote for this one to be FP. Need I say more? Althepal 21:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support As per above. BeefRendang 04:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support- Very cisp and high detail--Penubag 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)penubag
Promoted Image:Clerid beetle04.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
