Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Painted Lady

Painted Lady on Asian Lilac

 * Reason:Generally excellent image quality (color saturation, contrast, exposure, lens aperture are good), relatively high resolution.
 * Articles this image appears in:Painted Lady
 * Creator:Iridium135

(UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Iridium135 (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately, the camera angle doesn't show the lady from her best side... also, DOF is way too narrow. --Janke | Talk 16:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I don't mind the angle, but the depth of field is too shallow. Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Much of it is out of focus. ¢rassic ! (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Crassic, DOF is much too narrow; nearly nothing in focus. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 11:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Angle and DOF are acceptable, but the crop is too wide. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3/4 support for crop. I see that you're trying to keep both the plant and the butterfly as the subject of the image. I think it would be good to concentrate on one out of the two, and I think it has to be the butterfly (hence the article it's included in). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I actually like it blown up. Papa Lima Whiskey may be correct, though, that concentrating on the butterfly will work better--it's at least worth a try.  The butterfly, in spite of the depth of field, has a tremendous play of light and color from the sun shining through the one wing, shading the other.  --Blechnic (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for encyclopaedic value mostly - does not display it well and is not even the most illustrative picture of the same species on commons - Peripitus (Talk) 10:24, 18 June 2008
 * From my observation, the majority of current featured images, particularly those incidental to a very ubiquitous butterfly have no greater encyclopedic value than this one. As for the composition, it represents a unique perspective that, unlike most images, displays not only the side or top of the insect but rather shows an angled frontal view that perhaps provides, in some respects, even a more illustrative image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.85.21 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 June 2008
 * I disagree here - it is not amongst the best we have. The angle is an interesting one but the photo misses criteria 3 and 5 for me. It doesn't illustrate the subject in what, for me, is a compelling way; and as it's just in a gallery I can't see how it adds to the article - Peripitus (Talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)