Commons:Valued image candidates/Fly April 2009-1.jpg/Archive of previous reviews

•  Oppose It's a very nice picture but rarity isn't a mitigating reason when not having a 100% watertight species ID. Being the representative for a whole genus (Platynochaetus: P. festae · P. macquarti · P. niger · P. rufus · P. setosus ) important body parts are blurred and not displayed properly, I'am afraid --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Comment The species name appears to be spelled wrong on the File page. Rarity is not explicitly a criterion, but if it is the only image, then it is the most valuable. Adding some information from the reason field to the File page may be useful. I think it illustrates its subject well according to the three listed criteria of Commons:Valued image criteria. "Provided that the image complies with the above, it is not a valid ground of opposition that it would be easy to create a better one." I think the scope and category are fine. It is broadly distributed so a location category does not seem appropriate to me (and has not been given). That leaves the "fully-described" criterion. It satisfies the explicitly listed items on Commons:Valued image criteria although a pt, as well as an en description, would be welcome since the uploader is pt-N. I'm not convinced that the lack of a "100% watertight species ID" should prevent VI recognition. In some genera, the species cannot be visually distinguished. In such, a photograph of an unidentified species is a completely appropriate to illustrate that genus, in my opinion. Even if this is not the case, as long as the species that can be eliminated are listed, it may satisfy the "fully-described" criterion of VI. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said - making a VI for the genus would be no problem as long you have a ecplicit representative showing all characteristics which IMO this picture shows not. A animal whose half of the body is blurry isn't valuable because of criterion 3.1. -> inconclusive display of abdomen (tergum 3-5) plus maculation -> femur, tibia and tarsus of the 3rd pair --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)