Oppose I'm not sure how to justify a subfamily level here, especially with a species which is not fully id'ed. Lycaon (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the reason of knowing the species id if the image is illustrating the subfamily which is clearly identified. Also, this image of a tiger beetle is a good illustration of the sub family (commonly called tiger beetle) because it shows the colors for which it is so named. I don't see any other image which could be nominated instead of this. --Muhammad (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First and for all, the image is very good and should (eventually) get a VI label. But probably only when identified to species level. I have a bit of a general problem with VI's for higher taxonomic levels. Why would, in this case, a representative of the genus Lophyra be better to illustrate a Cicindelinae scope than an ubiquitous Cicindela? How to decide which snail best represents a Gastropoda scope or even worse: which animal to choose for the scope Animalia? These choices should be backed with some kind of rationale, some kind of notoriety, and not just be based on the prettiest picture. Lycaon (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern but IMO for the subfamily any image of the respective genus or species would do if it showed the basic characteristics of the subfamily. In this case, this image shows the distinctive characteristics of the tiger beetle. Going by your rationale, the tiger beetle article wold have no lead image because "a representative of the genus Lophyra be better to illustrate a Cicindelinae scope than an ubiquitous Cicindela" but nonetheless, the one image is chosen which best illustrates tiger beetle. IMO, the same should be done here. Regarding the id, as you may be aware, getting the complete id is nearly impossible from images. So it would not matter whether this is a Lophyra flexuosa or Lophyra striolata or any other of the 15 species. --Muhammad (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To answer lycaons concerns, I think that the best possible illustrations of higher taxa are not photographs, but rather schematics of generic organisms showing the characteristics of the given taxo level. The best illustration of an animal, would be a schematic shwing the key traits for a living organism to be called an animal. That does not mean higher taxa cannot be photos, but it gives less and less meaning the higher up in the tree we are. I this case I think the scope is too broad. When I look at the images in the category I see the critters look quite dissimilar. I would say that a slightly more narrow scope, such as the genus level Lophyra would be more adequate, and I would reconsider my review if the scope was narrowed. I agree with Muhammad that the critter does not have to be identified to the species level. What matters for VI is the level at which we visually can seperate things. It is an excellent photo by the way, and a very, very nice illustration of, whatever that is. --Slaunger (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An additional comment is concerning your license. I think it reduces the value that you are using a GFDL 1.2 only license as this restricts the number of Wikimedia projects the image can be used in. I.e., it would not be useable in the German wikipedia AFAIK, and as far as I have followed the recent licens trends and migration of GFDL 1.3+ to CC-BY-SA other projects are likely to prohibit GFDL 1.2 only in the future. --Slaunger (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came to think of that just because, I personally do not particularly fancy the GFDL 1.2 only license, that should not be held against the image unless it is in the guidelines. I have therefore opened the thread Commons talk:Valued image candidates#GFDL 1.2 only - is it acceptable? such that we can discuss it. Quite frankly I am not that knowledgeable about licensing details, so I thought it would be most fair to bring it out in the open. --Slaunger (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
