Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio palinurus (1).jpg

File:Papilio palinurus (1).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 13:38:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio palinurus (1).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio palinurus (1).jpg

•  Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Fantastic job capturing the iridescence. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
•  SupportTucvbif (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - MPF (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC) - changed vote, hadn't realised at first it was in a zoo, not natural environment - MPF (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment - very good detail and nice colour scheme, pitty for the damaged wing and right antenna over dark background. --Elekhh (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - Very pretty. Tiptoety ^talk 02:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral Again, lighting not so good in my eyes and the busy backround. But overall flawless so no reason to oppose. bg mathias K 09:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

* Oppose IMO, bad light on the leaves in the background (shows too much the use of flash). Lack of a part of the left wing, because of a leaf. A pity... I'm sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• • That's not because of a leaf: It's not uncommon for swallowtail butterflies to have one of the titular "swallowtails" damaged. It could be fixed by cloning, if desired, but it's not unusual. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • O, you are right, Adam Cuerden. I was not serious enough in reviewing. I withdraw my opposition and apologize. But I still think that the light in the background is not good enough.--Jebulon (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Poor lighting (greens are blown), messy composition. We have much better FPs of butterflies and should start asking a bit more from our creators. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose, harsh lighting and a background that adds nothing to the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor lighting due to the use of flash. It would be better to have natural full sun to highlight the iridescence. Is the plant in the background part of its native habitat? -- Ram-Man 12:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Info I tried to fix the background but it was near impossible to get something good. since I had done all the masking I put the butterfly on a white background (and fixed the wing). Amada44 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Damaged wing is part of a real life --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

The chosen alternative is: File:Papilio palinurus (1).jpg