Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Heliconius melpomene Richard Bartz.jpg

Heliconius melpomene

 * Reason:Technical quality and straightforward encyclopaedic value.
 * Articles this image appears in:Heliconius melpomene
 * Creator:Richard Bartz


 * Support as nominator Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose- A very nice picture, really. But I am afraid that WP has had many pictures of this kind (i.e butterflies standing on a leaf, pollinating followers, etc.) and I believe that we should give other and more innovative pictures a chance. Sorry! :) &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The role of FPC is not to keep out images that have merit. Even if you were concerned about bias, there is a clear established practice that each species deserves an article, and therefore, each species can have its own FP. If you have concerns about technical quality or encyclopaedic value (other than what I've just debunked), please bring them forward. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well, here are my notes:
 * 1. An unfortunate colour combination; the dark insect and its background.
 * 2. An unfocused background that has an orange part in ,and is roughly equal to the distance between the insect's body and the leaf decreases its visual attarctiveness.


 * 3. An other unfortunate combination between the insect and the leaf.
 * 4. I could not figure out what the insect was doing on the leaf (but that's just me, am not into insects:) )
 * Best of luck though. ;) &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As for #2: There's nothing in the FP criteria that says that any colour that is present in the main subject may not be present in the background.
 * As for #4: I believe it's just resting there. It needs to go somewhere to rest. Does that sound logical? Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support- Innovative is not a criteria for FP, but encyclopedic is and wow - you can count the hairs on its legs. It doesn't get more encyclopedic than that. The whole butterfly is in focus, the background is nicely blurred so as not to be distracting and the color is luscious. Composition is perfect to illustrate the butterfly. While it may be true that WP has lots of butterfly pictures, they are for the most part poor quality. I see no good reason this should be opposed on those grounds. There are a lot of insects out there in the world, and we need pictures of all of them. pschemp | talk 20:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support High technical quality, very encyclopedic. There are way way more insects in this world than there are furry creatures so any "overrepresentation" in our FPCs is fine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: Per pschemp. I found this picture to be particularly illustrative of the subject.— DMCer ™  12:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)