Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Waspstinger1658.jpg

Wasp stinger with venom droplet

Self nomination. I took the photo (and it cost me). I think it portrays clearly the mechanism of wasps to inject venom. It has been used on the venom page.Pollinator 07:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've been asked for a larger format version, which I don't have access to in this computer, but I should be able to get in a couple days. However, as I recall, the image was heavily cropped. It was shot by holding down a young polistes wasp with its abdomen hanging over the edge of a picnic table, and awkwardly shooting one handed with the camera. I took many shots but had only a couple of the stinger that were useable. I got popped a couple times while disassembling the nest, but I can't blame them for that, right? I also took photos of the larvae and pupae, but they were not so good.

I do not like to "pose" a photo, but had little choice here, as I wished to show the stinger extended. When done, I released the wasp; she and her sisters rebuilt the damage to the nest surprisingly quickly. BTW I regard the criticism about too little color as unfair. What am I supposed to do, paint the wasp? Pollinator 03:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose, fuzzy and not much color. Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Support An excellent illustration for the article, and bonus marks for danger money. -- Solipsist 09:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with Mgm. Also too low res. Interesting object though. Jonas Olson 15:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. Useful illustration. --MarkSweep 22:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. Nice work. Triddle 22:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. Great image regardless of technical limitations. Postdlf 03:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. Images that are hard to make (and a closeup macro of an extended stinger of a living wasp definately goes into that category) while showing interesting stuff (not many people will have seen such a clear view of an extended wasp stinger) deserve my support. Bonus points for not killing the wasp. Janderk 11:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could use some sharpening, but still gets my SupportCirceus 23:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Interesting, but it being small and fuzzy with a lack of colour or contrast outweight that. ed g2s • talk 16:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. It would indeed be a better photograph with better color (although I have difficulty imagining how that could be arranged; maybe a top wildlife photographer could pull it off) but the difficulty of the subject and the value of the picture in enhancing both articles far outweighs that. --Andrew 16:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Support what Janderk said. Lorax 02:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Support. It's a little fuzzy yes, but on weighing up interesting and technical composition, I think interesting wins here. Enochlau 12:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've added an auto-leveled version which puts the color back into it. Support either. --brian0918  21:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - I want to zoom out and see how this stinger fits into things. Perhaps a magnified image within an image would achieve this. - Pioneer-12 23:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support auto-leveled; I believe this image deserves to be a featured picture because of its uniqueness. Ground 18:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, unique and certainly practical. A bit fuzzy, but I doubt you can pose a better photo with a wasp. --Alexwcovington (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. A highly illustrative image, and a better (and braver!) one than I've ever taken, but the composition is iffy. It'd benefit from a tighter crop (particularly to remove brown blur in the upper left), but I'm waiting on the higher res version Pollinator mentioned before taking a go. —Korath (Talk) 22:49, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Waspstinger1658-2.jpg +10 / -4 / 1 neutral (not including presumed support from Pollinator. Promoting second version, although preference isn't clear. -- Solipsist 20:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]