Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Swallowtail Butterfly Closeup

Swallowtail Butterfly[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2010 at 23:04:05 (UTC)

Reason: This is a striking, up-close image of a butterfly. It has high encyclopedia value because, unlike most other butterfly pictures featured, it shows the butterfly actually feeding on plant nectar. You can see many small parts of the butterfly that would be hard to see to the average person. Also, the focus, resolution, and depth of field is excellent. A picture like this is not easy to take!
Articles in which this image appears: Swallowtail Butterfly
FP category for this image: Animals -> Insects
Creator: User:tristantech

Support as nominator --Tristantech (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Butterfly cut off which, as the subject of the picture, is kinda a big problem... Gazhiley (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gazhiley. It's a nice photograph, but not the "encyclopaedic style" we're looking for when illustrating species. If it were a little sharper, it might have EV for nectar feeding, although the bar is quite high (and that image failed twice). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, PLW is right. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the second time this kind of thing has come up in the last week or so. A good picture in terms of composition and framing may make a bad choice for featured picture for precisely the same reason. WP is an encyclopedia and not a gallery, so images here should, as their primary purpose, serve to illustrate the subject well. Those that don't, whatever their artistic merit, shouldn't be considered for FP. Perhaps there is room on Wikibooks for a collection of the best images in an artistic sense. Perhaps also the criteria for FP need to be clarified on this point.--RDBury (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria are already pretty clear. I don't really know about Wikibooks, but Commons is generally much more open to images like this at FPC than the English Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Unfortunate pixel issues. --I'ḏ ♥One 03:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture's all right but the main butterfly is cut ooffs. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that missing out on the swallowtails which gives the group its name kind of ruins a lot of its value for encyclopedic purposes. Good image, but not a good illustration. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]