Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (3).jpg

File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (3).jpg, featured

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  18:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like the detail of the eyes, including the water droplet. (And I am enjoying seeing photos more clearly on a new monitor instead of my fading, 8-year-old CRT.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 19:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not identified (try to start at Syrphinae or at least do the effort to ask at http://www.diptera.info). Lycaon (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info - I guess this is a male Eupeodes corollae -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Info No. It's not it. Look here. --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      •  Info In looking through the guidelines (and complete guidelines) for featured pictures, I don't see any mention about identification or GPS coordinates. Am I missing these guidelines somehow? --CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
        •  Comment I quote: "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others". Images of organisms that are not identified obviously have a very low value as to usability. For some groups (e.g. Diptera), there are very good and accessible resources online to help you with identification. The (small) effort is upon the nominator. Some groups are however very hard (e.g. Coleoptera) and then a higher taxonomical level (e.g. genus) should be acceptable. Lycaon (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
          •  Comment The value of a great picture doesn't depend upon it's description or information - the picture has inherent value. That is why identification is not included as a guideline - it's about the picture, not about written information. Besides, this is a community. If someone needs something identified, let them identify it and share it, that's what a Wiki is all about - community involvement. To disqualify a picture based on it's written information is a tragedy. --CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow, fantastic sharpness, colors and brilliance! -- Ra'ike T C 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Outstanding colours! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)