Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brahmeid Moth

Brahmeid Moth

 * Reason:Beautiful high-res photo
 * Articles this image appears in:Brahmaea, Brahmaea wallichii
 * Creator:Arthur Chapman


 * Support Edit 1 --Kaldari (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Beautiful, but unfortunately the lighting is harsh and the surroundings aren't ideal.  Zoo Fari  00:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. This is currently up for FP on Commons. As I nominated it there, I guess I should support it here. -- Silversmith Hewwo 07:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose For a single plane image, I would expect the DOF to be greater. No way f/4 can be used for macro without stacking.--Muhammad (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 Sharpness concern is overruled by 10MP resolution. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Providing more pixels does not mean the image can be sub-par. I downsampled the image and still half of the body is OOF --Muhammad (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I downsampled to minimum eligible size, and everything is wonderfully crisp. I rather suspect though, that both of us are conducting original research, and therefore both comments have to be disregarded... Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support edit 1. Don't love the harsh lighting, but it's generally a nice shot. J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also cropped edit 1 so that the moth is centered in the frame. Kaldari (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit1 Good sharp and proper wb --H92110 (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose original. Edit 1 is better, but I find lighting and background still disturbing. I would support Edit 1 as Valued picture. Elekhh (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. Brand[t] 16:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Gave it time, but in the end, didn't have enough support.

Not promoted  --  Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  01:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

-- Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, Edit1 is a clear promote. --Muhammad (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, Edit 1 should definitely be promoted.  upstate NYer  17:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, 7 supports for edit 1, an oppose, a weak oppose and VP advertisment. Cowtowner (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I only count 6 supports, not 7. Also, one of the opposes was only for the original and an implied neutral for the edit 1 version, so while my count seems to be different, it still looks like a promote to me. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well now, umm "oops" there. Miscounted Edit 1 as 5.5 - 1, or 4.5, which does not meet the threshold. On reexamination, it seems that there were 6.5 - 1, or 5.5, which does meet the threshold. Someone can promote this. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  16:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)