Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Bee fly feeding02.jpg

Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ support Good quality but EV not quite as good and I would have an angle such as this --Muhammad(talk) 11:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you say the EV is not as good in a top down view? I think it's a perfectly valid view for EV purposes as it gives a much better perspective of the wings (an important feature). A large number of current insect FPs use this view - eg your recent Wandering Glider shot. --Fir0002 08:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant EV is not as good because of the minimal exposure in the article. I prefer the other angle for a more dynamic shot. I checked my collection and found one with the angle I prefer. will probably nominate it later. --Muhammad(talk) 12:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose ~~EV is a must. Are you sure you can't squeeze it in there?~~ Can you add it to the genus article?
ZooFari 07:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Support Sorry, but these opposes are ridiculous. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only oppose here is mine. Is it really reasonable that users prefer the other images in the article instead of this one? ZooFari
  22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC
  - Maybe. But the flippant commetn isn't helping your case. (And, anyway, after spending a year memorising venation patterns on insect wings for a parasitology course, a good shot of the wings becomes pretty important. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have rephrased my ambiguous comment.
      ZooFari 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - Oh, right! That's a lot less flippant once it's clear what you meant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted No quorum. --wadester 16 03:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]