Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Butterfly portrait.jpg

Butterfly portrait

 * Reason:A good quality picture with very good EV, showing features of the butterfly rarely seen in a photograph. The cut-off antennas are not an issue in my opinion as showing the entire antennas does not allow enough room for the rest of the features in thumbnail. The DOF is good, showing the required areas well. The blur in the remaining part of the image is IMO not distracting and not possible to avoid.
 * Articles this image appears in:Butterfly, Hypolimnas misippus
 * Creator:Muhammad


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The detail is great. GerardM (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support A little less bend in the proboscis might have enabled more to be in focus, but perhaps that was not possible without harming the animal. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The picture was taken in a natural environment. Trying to reduce the bend might have made it fly away ;) --Muhammad (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you'd chosen another moment, the proboscis would not be bent. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poor composition leading to very shallow DOF - I don't think taking it from this angle improves enc at all. The same features could be shown from a semi side on angle (eg this) with much improved detail for the rest of the body. This shallow DOF also means that it's EV in Hypolimnas misippus is quite low. --Fir0002 12:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Incidentally you never cease to amaze me PLW
 * This view of the image shows the head better and in a compelling way IMO. For instance, the picture shows the labial palps. Those palps are mustache-like scaly mouthparts of adult butterflies that are on each side of the proboscis. They are covered with sensory hairs and scales, and test whether something is food or not. They also secrete a mucus that entangles suspended food and nutrient particles within the water to produce a ball of food and mucus called a bolus. Afterward, cilia on the palps direct the bolus into the mouth. These structures would not be visible from any other angle. I understand that EV in the Hypolimnas misippus article is low and hence its addition to the butterfly article. --Muhammad (talk)  15:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of the symmetry of nature you don't actually have to see both of the palps to illustrate them IMO - you could still get these in with a 45 degree composition and improve overall DOF (and incidentally eye detail). --Fir0002 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose for composition and DOF limitations. Sasata (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment and weak oppose Surely this could go in proboscis? Although it would be better if it were actually feeding. Think I lean towards weak oppose. Terri G (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regretful Oppose: I actually like the angle and find it quite interesting and unusual. Unfortunately, I agree with Sasata.  Too much of this is out of focus and the composition is uncomfortable.   Mae din \talk 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 07:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)