Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CH Caterpillar.jpg

Caterpillar of the Spurge Hawk-moth

 * Reason:Fairly high res picture of a spectacularly colored caterpillar with confirmed taxonomy.
 * Proposed caption:Caterpillar of the Spurge Hawk-moth (Hyles euphorbiae) on its primary food source the Spurge Cypress (Euphorbia cyparissias), seen in Kriegtal near Binn, Valais, Switzerland at approx. 2000m altitude.
 * Articles this image appears in: Caterpillar, Hyles euphorbiae
 * Creator:User:Dschwen


 * Support as nominator Dschwen 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Great image and a very informative caption.--Mbz1 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice macro image. Could only be improved by the leaves being around but not in front of the caterpillar, but aside from that, excellent image. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Good picture, nice colors.  Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Am I the only one with a problem with the flares around the leaf in the upper right hand corner? Enuja  (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original. Cool colors, they really sell it. Little to no TOF problems, and I only have the slightest qualm with some flash reflection especially on posterior portion. Can anything be done about that?D-rew 01:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No flash was used in the production of this picture. Hm, that reminds me to put a SpeedLite on my X-Mas whishlist :-) --Dschwen 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sun glare then? Still a bit distracting.D-rew 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original. The sharpening makes the skin appear dry, which may not be representative of the subject. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original. It looks like it needs sharpening, but then the other issue – chromatic noise – is exacerbated. Neither that nor slight softness are fatal flaws. In effect, corrections in these circumstances just seem to work against each other. We ran into a similar issue with that Locust image. In this case as in that one, once the dust settles, the original comes out looking favourite. --mikaultalk 11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support perfectly encyclopedic! H92110 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support both: Excellent work. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 13:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the leaves in the front. -- Aka (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 04:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)