Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hyalophora cecropia caterpillar

Hyalophora cecropia caterpillar

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2010 at 03:13:29 (UTC)

Original - Close up of a Cecropia Moth in its caterpillar stage, showing its colorful appearance. The caterpillar reaches up to five inches in length.

Reason: A good image of the character. It is in focus and shows the appearance of the caterpillar very well.
Articles in which this image appears: Cecropia moth
FP category for this image: Animals/Insects
Creator: Michael Hodge

Support as nominator --WiiWillieWiki 03:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment I really like this image. This angle and the way the light reflects off the side of the caterpillar is very interesting and eye-catching. Alas, I fear this one might receive wrath for not having every atom of this thing in sharp focus (depth of field). I personally don’t have any problem with it. Greg L (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shallow DOF, some parts look completely blown and distracting background. --Muhammad(talk) 06:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shallow DOF and distracting background? Are you sure that's what you meant? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the distracting background. The crop isn't quite there either- I can see what the photographer was trying to do here, and, if it'd worked, it would have been awesome, but, sadly, it didn't quite. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that strong, the image is currently only used in a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the distracting background. --Priest zadok (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. This caterpillar is certainly eye-catching and without blown highlights I'd support. The background seems quite natural and isn't annoying and the angle is also fortunate enough to show nearly all colorful stuff (IMHO). Twilightchill t 14:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support FWIW I'm satisfied with the subject the BG doesn't seem distracting to me. --I'ḏ♥One 19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at how the image is used in the article? J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It really should be in the "life cycle" section. --I'ḏ♥One 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Support, should have EV, but doesn't." J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It would if moved to the "life cycle" section... =3 --I'ḏ ♥One 00:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose really not a fan on any level: lighting, composition, background. Cowtowner (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's the orange and blue appendages that are blown, in the red and blue channels, respectively. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Excellent clarity on the caterpillar, but it needs something more than that to be a featured picture. Haljackey (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen that the image is currently only used in a gallery? J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - J Milburn, you've failed to notice that the "just gallery" you keep mentioning is labelled "Life cycle gallery" and shows the few and valuable images in it aligned chronologically: Eggs, caterpillar, pupa, adult, mating. --I'ḏ♥One 17:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you think that's fine, then go for it- I don't personally think it is. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good composition, excellent detail. It's a shame that the background is the same color as the caterpillar, but that and the DoF issues are not enough for me to decline. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]