Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Polyommatus bellargus male, Aveyron, France - Diliff.jpg

File:Polyommatus bellargus male, Aveyron, France - Diliff.jpg
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2014  at 12:57:34 (UTC)
 * Reason:As far as butterfly photography goes, I think this is pretty good. The vast majority of the wing and body is in clear focus (difficult in macro photography) and detail is such that you can see clearly the individual scales and the veins of the wing.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Adonis Blue
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator -- &#208;iliff   &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Question - Would this look better if the butterfly was straightened to be absolutely symmetrical? It appears (eyeballin' here) to have a slight clockwise tilt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, but to me the butterfly's tilt is slightly counter-clockwise, to the left. Brandmeistertalk  14:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You guys are funny. It's already been rotated. try measuring it. ;-) Your eyes are deceiving you... I think it's probably the out of focus branch in the background. Diagonal lines will play tricks on your senses. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Odd, last I checked with the rules in Photoshop, it took a little bit of rotation to be symmetrical. Anyways, Support as this is a solid image and a very nice macro. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I reprocessed it from the RAW file before nominating it, and I (re)ensured that it was symmetrical at that point. So it's possible the older version was indeed in need of a slight rotation but this one isn't. The upper tips of the wings are pretty much pixel-perfect parallel, although the bottom wings of the butterfly are not perfectly parallel - I blame mother nature though, not the rotation. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Alone, this image is stunning. As one of many in a short, over-illustrated article, it's less stunning. I suspect someone (probably someone with quick access to some butterfly books- I actually looked at one in a shop on Friday, but didn't buy it) could give the article some attention and improve it considerably. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article needs some expansion to better accommodate all the images, but I think all of the photos are useful and show a different aspect of the butterfly. There are side views and above views for male, female, and for mating. Potentially we could remove one of the two mating images as they somewhat duplicate the individual male and female views, but it's not just a gallery of random snapshots. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Nice image. I'm always hoping for a nomination with both the male and female as a pair (if they are sexually dimorphic) for maximum EV, but this is a good one (from above at least). Mattximus (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support J e e  05:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Nikhil (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 12:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)