Nowadays, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Flesh fly concentrating food.jpg is a topic that has captured the attention of many people around the world. Its relevance is not limited to a single sector or area of interest, but covers a wide range of contexts and situations. From its impact on society to its influence on the global economy, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Flesh fly concentrating food.jpg has proven to be an extremely important issue that does not go unnoticed. As we continue to explore and better understand aspects related to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Flesh fly concentrating food.jpg, new opportunities and challenges arise that require in-depth analysis and careful reflection. In this article, we will take a closer look at the different facets of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Flesh fly concentrating food.jpg and its impact on our world today.
Well I don't know because I'm no expert but the guy from the Australian Museum seemed pretty sure of it, and it does make sense. The other likely theory is that it's just fun to do :) I don't think the second FP is much an issue because there are many subjects which have two FP's - eg White-faced Heron - and the other image isn't even used in the articles this image is used in. --Fir000223:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I will support if the caption and the articles are slightly modified to show that the concentration of the food may be the reason for bubble blowing, among other reasons. --Muhammad(talk)16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Weak support Undoubted EV (whatever he's up to – doesn't anyone speak Sarcophagidic?) although I have to say it's a touch over-sharpened for my taste. --mikaultalk12:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Assuming the caption change as been done. The lighting is too harsh or its over sharpened but the bubble blowing makes up for it. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Personally, I don't see what long, elaborate captions have to do with FPC. This is a great photo of an interesting phenomenon - whether or not we can explain the phenomenon is beside the point. I note that the quality of this pic is slightly lower than some of the other macro images we've had, but we have to make an effort not to raise the bar. This was good enough a few years ago, and it's still good enough. Stevage06:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)