Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Australian painted lady feeding closeup.jpg

Feeding Australian Painted Lady Closeup

 * Reason:Technically sound and good EV
 * Articles this image appears in: Australian painted lady, Insect mouthparts, Nectar, Nectarivore and Pollinator
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - An excellent and beautiful picture but with dubious EV. Butterflies are not, as far as I know, effective pollinators. Thus the insertion of the picture in Pollinator is questionable. Also, it doesn't seem that this is the best depiction of Insect mouthparts or of Nectar. An obvious candidate to Commons FP though -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support very nice Muhammad (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Really good pic. I think it has plenty of EV for Insect mouthparts and for Nectar, particularly the Extrafloral nectaries section. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The image shows floral nectaries, though. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you have an ID on the flower? It's not particularly important, but since it's there in full, it might be worth identifying. Some sort of strawberry, perhaps? Thegreenj 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like some Viburnum sp. (V. tinus ?). But it is difficult to say with so little information -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is feeding on the flowers of Cotoneaster glaucophyllus --Fir0002 23:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. AshLin (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The only problem I have is that the pupil of the eye is a little blurry but that's probably just how the eye is, not a problem with the image. Amphy (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per my comments above. In none of the articles the picture has a relevant EV. It should be removed from Pollinator for being misleading: butterflies are not effective pollinators. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Nectar article talks about how predators feed on nectar, indeed describing it as the purpose of external nectar. In depicting this vital process the image might not be the best depiction of nectar itself but it still depicts the process very well and surely adds value to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The butterflies are not predators and they do not feed, as far as I know, on the extraforal nectaries (it is not doing that on the picture, for sure). In my opinion this picture should not be kept in the nectar artcicle, where it misleads the reader, less yet be promoted to FP for his extraordinary EV on the subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's illustrative of extraforal nectaries, but rather compliments the second sentence of the second paragraph. --Fir0002 23:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean this one: [...] so that pollinators are made to brush the flower's reproductive structures, the anthers and pistil, while accessing the nectar ? Well, the picture doesn't show the brushing, it is not mentioned in its caption and this is not the pollinator article. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No this one: It is also useful in agriculture and horticulture because the adult stages of many predatory insects, as well as hummingbirds and butterflies, feed on nectar. Also from the Butterfly article: Butterflies play an important ecological role as pollinators. --Fir0002 23:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an unreferenced statement in the article. I've marked it as such. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any inaccuracy in my above statement, it's been a while since I studied in the area and obviously I need to brush up on things before trying to inform others. Guest9999 (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize! :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the efficacy of butterflies as pollinators the issue and its appropriateness for the wiki on Pollinator or whether the image has artistic merit to qualify as a Featured? AshLin (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The encyclopaedic value prevails over the artistic merit. Please check criterium 5 here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above the butterfly article pretty clearly states that butterflies are important pollinators --Fir0002 00:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (reset indent) Yes, that is stated in the butterfly article, which is not illustrated by this picture. Anyway I still contest that butterflies are, in general, "important" pollinators. Due to their long legs and proboscis, they stay away from the anthers while feeding. That is why we never see a butterfly covered with pollen, like bees and hoverflies. This fact is clearly written in the pollinator article: Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) also pollinate to a small degree. They are not major pollinators of our food crops, but various moths are important for some wildflowers, or other commercial crops such as tobacco. Let me say it again: this is a beautiful picture but lacks enough EV for being featured, as it doesn't add significant value to the articles. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Alvesgaspar. I think Fir's other painted lady photo shows virtually everything this one does, while also showing more of the insect itself. Matt Deres (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Matt Deres. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Commment I can't believe the "no EV" argument is picking up so much momentum - this image is a great illustration for five articles making EV on of it's strong points. It's clearly a pollinator: Pollinator, Pollination syndrome,   . It clearly feeds on Nectar (fact 5) making it a good illustration for Nectarivore. Finally, and probably most significantly, the image shows a good close up of a butterfly's proboscis in action making it a perfect illustration of the relevant section of Insect mouthparts. Anyway I'll leave at that as I've got to concentrate on preparing for exams now and trust in MER-C's judgement on the matter --Fir0002 12:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we invoking the grand dictator again? I'm afraid that it is not MERC's role to go against community consensus (or perhaps, an absence thereof). The reason it doesn't have EV in insect mouthparts is that it shows only the proboscis, and even so, only partially (that is,one out of five mouthparts that insects have). Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * MWA HA HA HA HA HA. for now, but if someone can be bothered writing a section on Australian painted lady about it's feeding habits, then I'd say you have it. MER-C 05:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support for featuring. Reason: the decisive impression made by those labial palps (labial palp, Britannica).
 * It just so happens I'm in the process of making a List of Australian butterflies. It will take a long time for me to get around to writing up each currently absent species. However, this image would be outstanding as an illustration for a glossary of anatomical names of features related to the head. The labial palps are wonderfully distinct, and the eye is outstanding (literally ;)—doesn't she follow you around the room?
 * Since Wiki would not lose the image by moving it to Commons, why not do that?
 * If the image is not relevant to pollinator etc., by all means discuss removing it from those articles. However, for Vanessa kershawi it is obviously an excellent close-up. If that article doesn't have text illustrated by the picture as yet, that is a deficiency of the text, not of the picture.
 * But why not leave the picture, it makes up for a thousand missing words. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)