Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Biopics (talk | contribs)
Line 869: Line 869:
===File:2012-06-04 14-34-01-volucelle.jpg===
===File:2012-06-04 14-34-01-volucelle.jpg===
[[File:2012-06-04 14-34-01-volucelle.jpg|200px]]
[[File:2012-06-04 14-34-01-volucelle.jpg|200px]]
{{/Discuss| Volucella sp. (maybe Volucella bombylans) on flowers. --[[User:ComputerHotline|ComputerHotline]] 18:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
{{/Discuss| Volucella sp. (maybe Volucella bombylans) on flowers. --[[User:ComputerHotline|ComputerHotline]] 18:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |2=:
*{{s}} - Nice--[[User:Holleday|Holleday]] 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
*{{s}} - Nice--[[User:Holleday|Holleday]] 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
*{{o}} - Image not properly id'ed, nor categorized. [[User:Biopics|Biopics]] 08:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
*{{o}} - Image not properly id'ed, nor categorized. [[User:Biopics|Biopics]] 08:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
*{{s}} - seems ok to me, I'm perfectly willing to accept the "unidentified X" thing - we're not all experts in biology. [[User:Mattbuck|Mattbuck]] 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
*{{s}} - seems ok to me, I'm perfectly willing to accept the "unidentified X" thing - we're not all experts in biology. [[User:Mattbuck|Mattbuck]] 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
*QI requires proper categorization and an ID to species level when possible. ComputerHotline categorically refuses to do this '''[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AComputerHotline&diff=72148813&oldid=72097532 even when given this information]'''. Promotion of this incomplete nominations will reinforce that behaviour. Especially for common organisms it is a must that they are correctly identified. Nobody knows all the species, that is very true, but everybody here knows how to look something up on the internet or contact a specialist when the search does not deliver. [[User:Biopics|Biopics]] 10:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
}}
}}



Revision as of 10:56, 15 June 2012

Nominations

Due to changes in the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 11:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC). Thank you.

June 15, 2012

June 14, 2012

June 13, 2012

June 12, 2012

June 11, 2012

June 10, 2012

June 09, 2012

June 08, 2012

June 07, 2012

June 06, 2012

June 05, 2012

June 04, 2012

June 03, 2012

June 02, 2012

June 01, 2012

May 31, 2012

May 30, 2012

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".

Consensual Review

Use the same format as is already here:

  • Add a heading, eg "===photo title==="
  • Add braces and a size to the image name, eg "[[Image:photo name.jpg|200px]]" (You have to do this, because it isn't in a gallery any more)
  • Change /Decline or /Accept to /Discuss.
  • Add a new line after the 2nd "|"
  • Put a new line before the final "}}"

File:Olympiaturm,_Múnich,_Alemania_2012-04-28,_DD_08.JPG

  • Nomination Olympiaturm, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 19:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose supersaturated and wrong colours --Taxiarchos228 20:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    I uploaded a new version, hopefully better balanced Poco a poco 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good to me, needs a discussion IMO--Jebulon 15:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Lazise-Piazza Vittorio Emanuele.jpg

  • Nomination Lazise Piazza Vittorio Emanuele --Massimo Telò 07:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion It needs a tilt and perspective correction, see left side Poco a poco 09:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    Tilt maybe, but the perspective enhances the photo. I'd like to see it sharpened. Mattbuck 18:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Normal Lenses 7253.jpg

  • Nomination 50mm lenses --SkywalkerPL 19:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Ok. --Kallerna 09:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    I disagree shallow DOF two lenses are totally out of focus --PierreSelim 21:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Lazise-Piazza Vittorio Emanuele.jpg

  • Nomination Lazise: Vittorio Emanuele square ----Massimo Telò 07:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion It needs a tilt and perspective correction, see left side Poco a poco 09:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    Tilt maybe, but the perspective enhances the photo. I'd like to see it sharpened. Mattbuck 18:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Innsbruck_-_Triumphpforte5.jpg

  • Nomination Innsbruck: triumph gate, upper detail --Taxiarchos228 06:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blown highlights, needs perspective correction. Biopics 07:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    no blown highlights --Taxiarchos228 09:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support no blown highlights, no distortion needed. --Ralf Roletschek 10:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Bréhat_granit_près_Paon.jpg

  • Nomination The pink granite coast, pointe du Paon, Île de Bréhat, France. --JLPC 21:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Excellent--Jebulon 14:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose to me, poor image quality. --Carschten 15:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Innsbruck_-_Bergiselschanze6.jpg

  • Nomination Innsbruck: Ski Jumping hill Bergisel --Taxiarchos228 15:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Seems rather bright to me. Plus, blueish. Mattbuck 21:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    don't think so, let's see other opinions --Taxiarchos228 16:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-06-07 15-31-43-Lestes-sp.jpg

  • Nomination Lestes sp. --ComputerHotline 15:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Some noise in the background, but still OK for QI. --NorbertNagel 17:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    QI requires id. Biopics 06:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC) thank you Norbert. Biopics 06:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It is categorized as Lestes sponsa. What else is required? --NorbertNagel 05:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That's fine, I didn't notice as the nominator in general refuses to do a basic lookup of his species. Biopics 06:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You're probably right, I changed the category before promotion: :-) --NorbertNagel 18:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-06-07 16-05-36-zygoptera.jpg

  • Nomination Zygoptera sp. on a Cirsium sp. flower. --ComputerHotline 15:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Nice image composition --NorbertNagel 17:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    QI requires id. Biopics 06:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Rio di Santa Marta - Venezia.jpg

File:Frauenkirche_Pano.JPG

  • Nomination The Frauenkirche in Dresden --AleXXw 10:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Really great job ! Needs a perspective correction, IMO, and there is small stitching errors (I found only here) in the pinnacle -annotated- --Jebulon 12:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thx for the hint, I corrected the stitching error. I think I don't want to do a 'perspective correction'. The bottom of the church is around 40m away, the top of the cross around 110m, so it should be narrow on top :) --AleXXw 15:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
     Weak oppose due to overexposure. Mattbuck 21:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Kirche Strauch 2b.jpg

  • Nomination The village church of Strauch in Saxony.--
    S. F. B. Morse 07:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good light and composition. Maybe a bit oversaturated to me. Could be QI, in my opinion, if perspective corrected, and strong CA removed.--Jebulon 15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
     Info Thank you for your comment. The file is updated.--S. F. B. Morse 19:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose - chromatic aberrations, and the birds make it look messy. Mattbuck 21:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Perspective not corrected. --Bgag 20:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support Perspective not corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 10:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Dear Ralf... I'm not sure it is the good way to do...You use your vote to make a point... Please try to change the rules (or recommendations) by a vote if you disagree with them...--Jebulon 17:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Old Town SquareB.JPG

  • Nomination Bell Tower of Church of Saint Anne, and Old Town Square, Warsaw, Poland--Scotch Mist 15:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Very tight crop and notable perspective distortion. Next time leave more space to the main subject. --Iifar 16:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Thank you for your feedback - have adjusted perspective, re-cropped and uploaded the edited image, plus extended description. --Scotch Mist 06:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC) As background of Zamkowy Square is an important component of the photo would appreciate another opinion on this. Thanks. --Scotch Mist 08:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The Bell tower is leaning to the left. --Slaunger 20:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Adjusted perspective as far as possible without giving the building unnatural visual proportions, or further cropping the building - is this now OK? --Scotch Mist 07:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Uploaded new file with CAs corrected. --Scotch Mist 18:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Vulpen inkt.jpg

  • Nomination Ink well--1Veertje 14:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Een mooi beeld maar -- assuming the bottle is aligned with the box, perspective and angle should be corrected. Bottle cap and bottom seem to be slightly out of focus. -- Aisano 18:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    as you can see here, the box (a book shelf) itself wasn't straight. I've tilted the top a bit --1Veertje 17:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Image:Orthodox Cathedral, Fira 04.jpg

File:Orthodox Cathedral, Fira 04.jpg

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Cathedral of Candlemas of the Lord, Santorini, Greece --Bgag 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 09:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of contrast, wrong white balance IMO. The white looks not white enough, I wish a discussion please.--Jebulon 16:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Parish_church_Atzwang_front_view.jpg

  • Nomination Parish church Saint Josef in Atzwang --Moroder 07:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Blue undertone, aberance --Jagro 11:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review. I uploaded a corrected version for colour tone, I don't see chromatic aberration at size 100%!?--Moroder 19:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

 Support It seems good to me now, I do not see any chromatic aberration. -- Aisano 21:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Luma_grand_prix_2012.jpg

  • Nomination Junior bicycle racer from Fredrikshofs cycling team during Luma GP 2012. Stockholm, Sweden. --ArildV 16:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but cannot approve for QI with that crop Poco a poco 18:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the image composition incl. (unusual) crop and DoF. Let's discuss, if someone disagrees. --NorbertNagel 15:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness and focus are great, but I don't like the crop either. IMO it's a pity. --Kadellar 21:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For the crop too... is it a picture of a bicycle racer or of a wet road ? -Gzzz 20:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just to explain my position: Cutting the main object can be a style element to escape from a boring image composition and the empty space on the near right is the road area, which the bicycle racer passes in a half second. I thought the dynamic of the moment is nicely catched with this image composition. --NorbertNagel 17:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its good crop, dynamic, QI --Ralf Roletschek 21:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per other supporters.--Jebulon 21:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per other supporters.-- Jkadavoor 06:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-05 Lippstadt Wasserturm 06.jpg

  • Nomination Water tower in Lippstadt, Germany -- Achim Raschka 14:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Slight CW tilt, but otherwise good -- MJJR 18:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Visible CW tilt, blown blue channel (>4%) and focus problems. Biopics 17:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support meets QI criteria --Taxiarchos228 14:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good for QI --Ralf Roletschek 21:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I uploaded a new version with several corrections. I hope It's okay for Achim (and for the voters). --Carschten 17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Abbaretz_-_Chataignier_Nonneries_02.jpg

  • Nomination Nonneries chestnut - Abbaretz - Loire-Atlantique, France --Selbymay 18:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support - Good--Jebulon 17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not for me - cyan sky, the twigs have turned blue... Mattbuck 10:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of purple chromatic aberrations in the branches and twigs. -Gzzz 20:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Rauma_panorama.jpg

  • Nomination A panoramic image of Rauma. --kallerna 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion I'm sorry, I like the panorama but there are a couple of small things which mean I don't think this is QI really. First off, there's the overexposure, or at least excess brightness on the left. Then there is a noticable blue tint, especially in the shadows. The tint is fixable, but the overexposure... I don't know,  weak oppose I guess. Mattbuck 10:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 55 57309.jpg

  • Nomination 57309 at temple Meads. Mattbuck 12:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Just below the driver in the cab is a chromatic aberration which appears to be caused by the light in the lower left hand corner of the train, probably caused by a lens filter reflecting the light. --Mifter Public 14:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support the corrected version. The image easily meets QI standard now ;). Best, Mifter 20:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportI disagree - Insufficient quality? I think, its good for QI. --Ralf Roletschek 20:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
As I said above, the chromatic aberration just below the driver for me causes it to fail the color part of COM:IG. Best, Mifter 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support sufficient for QI, nice picture --Taxiarchos228 18:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality for QI. Even if ignoring CAs in background cannot ignore significant distortion at centre of photo and agree with MP. --Scotch Mist 06:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Background CA's still present but not sufficient to oppose QI. --Scotch Mist 09:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I fail to see how the ghost light could have been caused by chromatic aberration; looks like lens reflexion to me. But since it is not on a vital part of the image it can be corrected without going to too much trouble. I do not know whether this would change anyone's mind about the discussion. -- Aisano 18:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    It's probably due to the UV filter on the lens. I'll try and fix it once Photoshop finishes creating an 80 photo panorama. Could be a while. Mattbuck 22:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    OK, I've fixed it, but am unable to upload because my connection won't allow direct uploads and flickr2commons keeps timing out. The flickr version is fixed, can someone upload please? Mattbuck 10:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    I just uploaded it and purged the cache. -- Aisano 18:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI now, IMO. -- JLPC 10:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-06-04 14-34-01-volucelle.jpg

  • Nomination Volucella sp. (maybe Volucella bombylans) on flowers. --ComputerHotline 18:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion :
  •  Support - Nice--Holleday 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Image not properly id'ed, nor categorized. Biopics 08:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - seems ok to me, I'm perfectly willing to accept the "unidentified X" thing - we're not all experts in biology. Mattbuck 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • QI requires proper categorization and an ID to species level when possible. ComputerHotline categorically refuses to do this even when given this information. Promotion of this incomplete nominations will reinforce that behaviour. Especially for common organisms it is a must that they are correctly identified. Nobody knows all the species, that is very true, but everybody here knows how to look something up on the internet or contact a specialist when the search does not deliver. Biopics 10:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Familjebostäder_2012.jpg

  • Nomination HQ of Familjebostäder. Södra Hammarbyhamnen, Stockholm.--ArildV 00:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support QI for me. --Makele-90 18:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice colour, but extremely distorted. The other one is better. --Misburg3014 18:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Distorted?? Worm's-eye view isnt distortion.--ArildV 18:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem with distortion IMO. --JDP90 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too strong distorted --Ralf Roletschek 20:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good.--Jebulon 16:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me.--S. F. B. Morse 02:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strong distorted (looks wider on top) --AleXXw 07:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Neutral The three green-and-white neon signs at the ground floor level are overexposed. Perhaps try a bracketed exposure if you get another chance and do some exposure fusion from raws with, e.g., tufuse. Otherwise very good dusk light, atmosphere, and overall quality. Do not mind the perspective distortion. At this proximity correcting more for it would give weird side effects. --Slaunger 22:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Slaunger: In my opinion, you have raised the quality requirements of QI to an extreme level. It is not enough anymore that the images have very good dusk light, atmosphere, and overall quality. From now on must be QI was absolutely perfect and flawless (I would have to decline 99 percent of all the pictures here with your requirements). The sign is an extremely small part of the image.--ArildV 22:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Point taken. I was too pedantic there to decline due to that alone given the very good qualities of other aspects of the photo. Changed to neutral. I will try to stick to the higher expectations for FPC. --Slaunger 07:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - This is the problem with perspective correction: perspective is natural. When you correct it, a lot of the time things just look wrong. Mattbuck 15:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Opposeper Mattbuck. Sorry, but this strong distortion makes this building look unnatural. --High Contrast 18:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes? Mattbuck 15:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Palais Walderdorff Trier 2011.jpg

  • Nomination Palais Walderdorff, Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate. -- Felix Koenig 16:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 16:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know if it's possible from the location but a picture taken from in front of the center of the building might be more impressive. -- Aisano 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this would be more impresive (others would disagree) but nevertheless this is QI. ;-) --Berthold Werner 12:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: The picture may have been manipulated, at least the perspective is heavily distorted. I would replace it with an unmanipulated version. --Misburg3014 17:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me.--Jebulon 16:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Perhaps could have cropped a touch tighter on either side but overall quality good for QI.--Scotch Mist 09:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - possibly a bit of a halo around the building, but it's probably just my eyes. Good enough for me. Mattbuck 15:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is sufficient. Nice work. --High Contrast 19:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Berthold Werner 06:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Ants cultivating afids on Rubus - Blackberry - Brombeere - Hesse - Germany - 01.jpg

  • Nomination Ants cultivating/milking afids on Blackberry (Rubus). --NorbertNagel 16:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very good. --Selbymay 17:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    Needs ID. Biopics 12:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --NorbertNagel 17:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the attempt, but Aphis fabae feeds mainly on Fabaceae and is very dark. Maybe this publication may help. The ant is most likely correctly identified. Biopics 12:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the literature. I will have a look tomorrow. --NorbertNagel 18:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think, the aphis species is one of the three species mentioned in the publication above: Macrosiphum funestum, Amphorophora rubi or Sitobion fragariae).
I still believe, the aphis species is most likely Aphis fabae. Please compare the photo in this hyperlink with my other images of this plant: 2, 3 and other plants nearby at the same day: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Same ant and aphis species on rubus and Digitalis purpurea in my opinion. What do you think? -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --Florstein 21:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not Aphis fabae, but I do not yet know the species. Better to contact a specialist and then resubmit. Biopics 06:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for informing me, I actually thought you now agree with my categorization. I agree that we should follow up on that and contacted Prof. Loxdale, one of the authors in the publication you recommended above. However the image could probalbly also be QI with only two out of three species determined precisely. I leave the decision to the community. --NorbertNagel 18:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --