Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Painted Lady

 
Original - Butterfly of the Species Vanessa cardui on Asian Lilac.
 
Version 2 - A cropped, definition enhanced version of the original version.
Reason
Generally excellent image quality (color saturation, contrast, exposure, lens aperture are good), relatively high resolution.
Articles this image appears in
Painted Lady
Creator
Iridium135
  • Support as nominator --Iridium135 (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unfortunately, the camera angle doesn't show the lady from her best side... also, DOF is way too narrow. --Janke | Talk 16:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I don't mind the angle, but the depth of field is too shallow. Thingg 21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Much of it is out of focus. ¢rassic! (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Crassic, DOF is much too narrow; nearly nothing in focus. —αἰτίας discussion 11:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Angle and DOF are acceptable, but the crop is too wide. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3/4 support for crop. I see that you're trying to keep both the plant and the butterfly as the subject of the image. I think it would be good to concentrate on one out of the two, and I think it has to be the butterfly (hence the article it's included in). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I actually like it blown up. Papa Lima Whiskey may be correct, though, that concentrating on the butterfly will work better--it's at least worth a try. The butterfly, in spite of the depth of field, has a tremendous play of light and color from the sun shining through the one wing, shading the other. --Blechnic (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for encyclopaedic value mostly - does not display it well and is not even the most illustrative picture of the same species on commons - Peripitus (Talk) 10:24, 18 June 2008
    • From my observation, the majority of current featured images, particularly those incidental to a very ubiquitous butterfly have no greater encyclopedic value than this one. As for the composition, it represents a unique perspective that, unlike most images, displays not only the side or top of the insect but rather shows an angled frontal view that perhaps provides, in some respects, even a more illustrative image.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.85.21 (talkcontribs) 22:24, 18 June 2008
      • I disagree here - it is not amongst the best we have. The angle is an interesting one but the photo misses criteria 3 and 5 for me. It doesn't illustrate the subject in what, for me, is a compelling way; and as it's just in a gallery I can't see how it adds to the article - Peripitus (Talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]