Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Charaxes brutus natalensis.jpg

Charaxes brutus natalensis

 * Reason:good quality, EV and aesthetics. Also, doing very well at commons FPC
 * Articles this image appears in:Charaxes (genus), Charaxinae, Papilionoidea
 * Creator:Muhammad


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Wow, great detail and composition. Flawless. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nice but please provide a scale to complete the EV. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, since when did we make the scale a must? :-)  Zoo Fari  02:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit 1 uploaded added scale but it may not be as accurate as the others--Muhammad (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Original Only. An imprecise scale is worse than no scale at all, because it is misleading. An approximate size in the caption is better in this case. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You may want to check what happened to this article you linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brush-footed_butterfly&action=history Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I redirected the page to Nymphalidae which is the correct scientific name equivalent. --Muhammad (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original only per Noodle snacks. mgiganteus1 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the standard of Wikipedia featured images of this type is very high and I think any new nomination should be virtually flawless to be promoted. In terms of technical and aesthetic merit and encyclopaedia value I think this image meets that standard. Guest9999 (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original only. nice image.--Caspian blue 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original only by Noodle Sacks. Also in favor of adding a mention of the approximate size in the description of the shot. Ksempac (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original as above. Wow. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Edit 1. I don't think knowing the exact size of the butterfly is that important. It's a butterfly. It's about as big as... a butterfly. The size can be mentioned in the description, if it's that important. Kaldari (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality, good EV for the species. If the scale isn't accurate, leave it off. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Great quality, good color blance and exposure. --Woglinde 02 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original; Weak oppose edit 1. Good colours and overall quality. If the butterfly was of an abnormal size, then I'd go with the scale, but in this case, I don't find it necessary.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 17:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

-- wadester 16  23:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)