Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vlinder1.jpg

File:Vlinder1.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 18:53:27

•  Info created by hrald - uploaded by hrald - nominated by hrald -- Hrald (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Hrald (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice, I think. Size is on the low side, though it still meets requirements. Maedin\^talk 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Very nice picture, and has a lot to commend it. Sadly, it is only 1.6MPx, so it has no chance of FP status. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral The picture is beautiful, and the black butterfly is unusual. But it is a fact that it's below the size recommendation and we don't have so few butterfly pictures that it would make up for this, to put it mildly... -- JovanCormac (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Change vote to  Support. hrald has uploaded a higher-res version that meets all the requirements and is just as beautiful. ID is still needed though, but I am sure someone will be able to do it. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment the size has been changed, this was my first upload, I took the wrong (small) size per mistake!! hope it still has a chance becoming a fp now:-)--Hrald (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice shot, but noisy and still unidentified. --Olei (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Olei. —kallerna™ 06:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Identification of the species is not an FP criteria. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Theoretically it doesn't need even an image description because it's not written in the guidelines ? Of course it should be identified to make it valuable.   • Richard • [®] • 08:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As long it's unindentified   • Richard • [®] • 08:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I might oppose because it doesn't have a decent description (filename and description which says butterfly!), which indeed lowers its value. Some seem to demand species id (which admittedly the above comments don't), but often it is better for amateurs to identify at higher level en:Euploea than make inaccurate guesses at the exact species. I don't believe amateur guesses add to value. So maybe we agree :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to be a biologist to identify insects. There are hundreds of useful forums (started with en:WP or de:WP) where you can get a identification of your images.   • Richard • [®] • 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Support very nice --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  17:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tony - Vlinder is butterfly in Dutch! So it is in the file name. But I guess if it's in Eng Wikipedia, it ought to be in english..- Ashley

Yes, that is what I said, filename and description both just say 'butterfly' in different languages - Dutch and Latin. A rather inadequate description. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Now that the image is sufficient resolution. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Info After doing some research (on wikipedia!:-)) I found the butterfly likely to be a:

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Lepidoptera Family: Nymphalidae Subfamily:Danainae Genus: Euploea Species: E. core

I posted this picture to see if it could make the featured picture status, not because of the subject being a Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Danainae Euploea E. core. It was not mentioned in the rules for becoming a featured picture to have a 100% sufficient description. IMHO the name of the subject adds nothing to the photographic quality of a picture. I would never upload an insufficient named cq labeled picture to a wiki article! greetings--Hrald (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Black is black... Colors composition. --Karel (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too less contrast with background, especially in left top. Strange artefacts in white spots of forewing. Indentification is doubtful, there are some other very similar species. We have already enough wrong identified insects. Location where image was taken is missing (could help to identify). --Hsuepfle (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)