Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Papilio machaon catterpillar

Papilio machaon caterpillar

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 15:36:31 (UTC)

Reason: Great picture with high EV, superb quality, and impressive
Articles in which this image appears: Papilio machaon
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Archaeodontosaurus

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Over-illustrated article, and low DOF, but still stunning enough for a support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe article is over-illustrated, but this photo is the best illustration of the caterpillar in the article. Tomer T (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - 100% agree! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Quite striking. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Was the background removed after the image was taken? It's hard to image pure black occurring naturally. 23:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
comment - Not happy with the lights (flash?); so many reflections on the body and excessively on the stem. Prefer a natural background (I assume this black background is the result of artificial lights) but its OK under the life cycle section. Don't happy with the butterfly picture in the info box too. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the infobox picture. Not sure if it's better, take a look. Tomer T (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better. I like these type of wing details even though this one has some other issues. I didn't see a near perfect picture of this species in the category. Thanks; we really need high quality works. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually find the black background quite encyclopaedic. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Major sections of the body are out of focus. Clegs (^{engage in rational discourse}) 07:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support high level of detail but has some problems with blur. Pine^(talk) 07:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4.5 < 5 supports. Jujutacular (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]