Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scarlet peacock (Anartia amathea) male underside Tr.JPG

File:Scarlet peacock (Anartia amathea) male underside Tr.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 14:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Scarlet peacock (Anartia amathea) male underside Tr.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scarlet peacock (Anartia amathea) male underside Tr.JPG

•  Info created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charles (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support lovely colors--LivioAndronico talk 14:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Nicely captured, but I'm slightly concerned by the colours of the flower below it, it looks like it's oversaturated or colour channels are blown... But as long as the butterfly isn't suffering the same problem, it's not a big deal I suppose. Diliff (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Bojars (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Very nicely composed. I'd suggest cropping in a bit to get rid of that dead space on both sides. But on the other hand that helps diffuse attention from the issues with the flower that David brought up. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't want to get opposing opinions to my opposing vote anymore but not detailed overall especially the edges of the wings are not sharp and bright parts are overexposed.(I know it was taken with 400mm lens.) --Laitche (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • All votes should be contestable though, and you should be able to defend your position - it's normal. Diliff (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Diliff, I want to defend the FP quality more than my position, for now :) --Laitche (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
      • You should think more to defend your position, trust me --LivioAndronico talk 19:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I know well what you want to say, but the FP is for the works not for the members, Thanks Livio. --Laitche (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
        • It seems like a real life, If people who behave very defensively then would get a success but also that's risky cause they might lose themselves. --Laitche (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Beautiful composition, but per Laitche. And I'd add it falls a bit short quality wise, despite the small size. Guessed it was cropped rather than downsampled (I'm not aware the lens used has this big a magnification). - Benh (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bokeh is nice, but quality is low despite not so big resolution. --Mile (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
•  weak oppose The bar for butterfly images has moved very high during the last years and I fear this is slightly sub-FPC-standard in terms of sharpness. Very nice separation between bright subject and smooth dark background tough! --El Grafo (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Of zoological interest. --Tremonist (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I am not happy with the format - the crop is tight on bottom and wide at the sides. But sharpness is ok for me. Overall, I can support this image. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too many gray areas. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others, especially worried about overexposure and background posterization. — Julian H.^✈ 16:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral I agree somehow with pros and contras...Poco² 09:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)