Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Junonia villida 2.jpg

Meadow Argus edit

Original - Meadow Argus (Junonia villida)

Reason: Good quality focus stack. Compliments wings closed FP.
Articles this image appears in: Junonia, Meadow Argus
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very impressive focus stack. I have enough trouble shooting butterflies as it is, how did you manage to focus stack it before it flew off (or even moved it's wings slightly)? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The stack was taken in burst mode, so only needed about 2 seconds. If a full burst is not successful you can still partially stack to enhance. This one was on the move, but it is helpful to shoot on colder days, you get a bit more time. It was raining at the time of this shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice. Much better than the other one with the tattered wings, may be worth a delist. (Possibly OT, but just a query on your positioning of the licensing template on these image pages?) --jjron (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Licensing position is because of commons:Commons:Tools/Commonist putting it there. It will put some licences where they should go, but anything else and you need to put it in the description :(. Consequently, it ruins the image page format a bit, but I can upload lots of files with very little effort. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh, maybe I'll look into that myself. Recently uploaded about 60 images and it took me forever. --jjron (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the subject of delist, this doesn't say anything about wings closed, and the other still gives a better look at the head. I could swap the other for File:Junonia villida 3.jpg though (which has better lighting). Noodle snacks (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I find it very hard to believe that this and this are the same species. Unless there's something like very significant sexual dimorphism or such I'd say one (most likely the second one) must be misidentified. --jjron (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. very good focus, nice composition and pleasant colour scheme, while enough contrast. Elekhh (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support~ per Elekhh. Nezzadar ☎ 14:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, stunning. Even the bark looks lovely. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. How many image stack? --Muhammad(talk) 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only five (relatively big subject) Noodle snacks (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image, great focus, good EV. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Quality, EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per Elekhh. ~ Arjun 20:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Junonia villida 2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]