Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus Female 2838px.jpg

Eastern Tiger Swallowtail

 * Reason:Very highly detailed wings for obvious encyclopedic value. Already a FP on Commons.
 * Articles this image appears in:Eastern tiger swallowtail
 * Creator:Ram-Man


 * Support as nominator RM 02:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Beautiful... everything you would look for in a featured picture!¡ 24.26.221.10 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please log in to vote. --jjron (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support I find the flower distracting because of its brightness, and certain parts of the Swallowtail are hidden because of the black background (such as the antennae and slight shadows in the wings). Otherwise, it's a nice image.  Spencer T♦C 01:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The focus is off - it's on the wings when it should be on the most important part, the head (which is completely OOF). It's a shame that it wasn't focussed better as otherwise it's a very nice image. Hence the weak vote. --Fir0002 06:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This image is obviously about the wings, not the head. -- RM 11:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This image is about the entire subject, not a specific part. At least, that is what I got from the caption and article of choice. &mdash; BRIAN 0918  &bull; 2008-08-15 14:09Z
 * Obviously by definition the subject is whatever is in the picture. The primary focus of the image is clearly the wing detail.  Everything other than the wing is important in its own way, but they are only a secondary focus.  No image can focus on every important detail, nor should it try to.  That would be quite an unreasonable standard. -- RM 21:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case your composition is poor - the immediate impression it gives is that it is attempting to illustrate a Swallowtail in its entirety. If you want to illustrate wing detail then you'd need to stick to something like this or even go with something along the lines of this which gives both wing detail and the head in sharp focus. --Fir0002 06:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Excellent quality, but unfortunate background. Clegs (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it is a nice photo but not good enough to be featured especially because of the distracting background.--Avala (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The strong direct lighting made the background dark, but it also made the butterfly wings "pop". The butterfly would look flat in dull lighting, as in this image.  The scales on the butterfly act like mirrors of a sort.  The light highlights the important encyclopedic element here: the wing detail. -- RM 14:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too little of the body is visibly (especially the feeding tube is lacking), I prefer some of the gallery pictures in the article. Also, I doubt that's the wild-type colour of the flower, insects tend to have difficulties locating red flowers. Narayanese (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Difficulty finding red flowers? Certainly not!  It is the most popular nectar flower in my flower garden after my milkweeds.  As for the flower saturation, Tithonia rotundifolia is one of the most highly saturated flowers I've ever seen (in both its red and orange forms).  Here is another example. It boggles my mind why people do not like the red flower.  There is nothing wrong with it and the color is accurate! I also do not understand the obsession with the head.  This is a unique image in that it clearly shows the fine details of the wings.  The choice of aperture maximized the sharpness at the expense of DoF.  But its certainly encyclopedic because of its main purpose. Who cares about the feeding tube if the other image does a far more effective job of showing the head and the feeding?  Each image has a different purpose. -- RM 14:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question - Is this a live butterfly or a preserved one? I don't know if it's the lighting or what, but the wings look like it's made out of cloth/plastic to me... --antilivedT 12:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See the example image in my comment above (it is the same butterfly). This is exactly my point though, most people never see this kind of detail in a butterfly, which is why it is special.  Here is another example of a Monarch butterfly wing in extreme detail.  Notice that you can't see the head! Instead the focus of voting is on something that is totally unimportant in the image.  Baffling stuff. -- RM 14:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This picture has encyclopedic value and is also a very good macro shot. Muhammad (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I do see the OOF head, but I personally do not find the background distracting. --Base64 (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. High EV, high-resolution and clear example of subject. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per RM's arguments. The status of the head is being overemphasized here and I don't see the background as being distracting, but offering a distinct barrier between wings and background. I guess another background color could be more appreciated, but that's not to say this one shouldn't be. It's what is offered, not what could be offered. Wadester16 (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

- no consensus. --jjron (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)