Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Melanargia galathea

Melanargia galathea

Reason: Saw this one on commons and thought it was worthy of becoming a featured picture.
Articles this image appears in: Melanargia galathea
Creator: Michael Apel

Support as nominator — Bewareofdog 02:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Looks grainy... or sharpened or something. ^8thstar 04:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They are artifacts and they are distracting. -Fcb981 05:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose There's some lovely detail in there, but there's a sort of texture overlaying the picture that makes it really hard to appreciate this as much as it really deserves to. Maybe if it was downsampled a bit? Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't see any major technical flaws at full size; it could be worked on and improved a bit, but detail and encyclopaedic value are good, and it's an attractive photo. --jjron 08:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any flaws on my screen. And you can see the scales of the wing. Wonderful image. Please don't downsample the image -- it might please those who must examine the "actual pixels" but it in no ways improves the image. Reviewers should consider the level of detail an image holds rather than considering pixel count and sharpness as separate hurdle requirements. —Pengo 09:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something doesn't seem right with the tech quality. It sort of seems grainy, especially around the edges of the wing. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is nice, but its not high enough quality to be featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddiekate (talk • contribs)
Comment. As is meant to be the case with all candidates, please ensure you view this at full res before voting. Some 'apparent' flaws in the downsized versions are not there at full size. I hope all opposers above have viewed at full size (because some of the reasons sound like they're referring to what I see in the downsized versions). --jjron 08:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think the picture is worthy of FP. Nice snap with focus on the subject. Details of wings, eyes and legs are visible with amazing clarity. --Kalyan 12:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find any artifacts in the image though it's not totally noise free. But the auto-generated 800x600 preview has some very bad jpeg compression artifacts. For comparison I've uploaded an optimized 800x600 version: --Michael Apel 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may already be aware of this, but it is quite acceptable to actually post a vote for your own image. --jjron 08:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's pretty, well done, and very detailed, if not perfectly crisp, at full size. Being detailed does not necessarily require it to be perfectly sharp or noise free. J Are you green? 18:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Opposing this is like balancing intangible good qualities against tangible downsides and essentially giving precedence to the tangibles. In my opinion this image is reasonable; it is detailed, attractive, and it has caught the butterfly exquisitely. Chris Buttigieg 09:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Mad Max 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't get this wrong, if there were any major technical flaws in there I wouldn't be surprised. But I just can't see any. I didn't submit it here and won't vote as I'm not really active on en. The image itself is slightly noisy if you look at the out of focus parts. But the amount is really negligible imho. What I suppose many see as a pattern on the butterfly wings are the scales and not noise, grain or other artifacts. The wings do have an inherit pattern. --Michael Apel 08:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fullsize image have no sharpening artifacts, is not 'grainy' or noisy, is sharp, is of very high technical quality, the butterfly have a pattern on the wings, so be it. Very good picture of a butterfly, encyclopaedic! Only thing is that background could be blurred a bit to take noise away, but that is sometimes not acceptable and not needed in this case. Full support! Stefan 03:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1 Nice photo, although composition would be greatly improved if more of the flowerhead was visible --Fir0002 08:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC) No consensus. MER-C 08:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]