Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Butterfly Wing close-up.jpg

Butterfly Wing close-up

Original - Close-up view of wing of Citrus swallowtail butterfly

Reason: Good quality, EV, colours and wow. DOF is quit good considering the magnification.
Articles in which this image appears: Butterfly
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this to be an excellent shot. upstate NYer 05:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support No kidding, "wow". Would be much better encyclopedic value if it were the entire wing (IMHO), but...wow! -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 06:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the enthusiastic support :-) Showing the entire wing would mean losing the fine details of the scales. This is so "wow"y because it is of high magnification. --Muhammad(talk) 10:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer because the lighting gives it more depth, and it's of higher resolution at roughly the same magnification. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At its largest size, when viewed at full resolution, the magnification appears to be the same. At thumbnail sizes, hardly can any scale or details be made out due to the wider view unlike the nominated image which due to a tighter crop shows details in thumbnails. --Muhammad(talk) 13:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A tighter crop of MichaD's image could easily be created, but it addresses Runningonbrains' concern as it is. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it covers the whole wing either. --Muhammad(talk) 10:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - But its alt does, and they could be promoted as a set. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        And File:Citrus Swallowtail Papilio demodocus.jpg shows the entire wing as well. --Muhammad(talk) 23:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So what's up with those colours? They're completely different. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I stopped scrolling to gaze at this picture. It would be fine picture on the Main Page for a day. Greg L (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much higher magnification, eg this, would be a lot more revealing. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And a lot more expensive. That is taken through a microscope objective at around 20-40X --Muhammad(talk) 05:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova⁴¹² 01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support' per "wow". --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note This image is not currently in the article listed above. It was pushing several more relevant pictures out of the way in an article that is quite laden with images, including already at least two of Muhammad's. It would be better to try to find articles that are actually still in need of images. Papilio demodocus is also already completely full of images. More coordination between content editors and photographers might help in this regard. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This image was not pushed into the article. There was a similar picture by Fir0002 of slightly lesser DOF and I replaced it with mine which I considered to be superior. Note to others, the image was not removed from the article by any random editor but by Papa Lima Whiskey who saw the image here, commented on it here and then went on to remove the image from the article despite the consensus here. --Muhammad(talk) 12:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Muhammad, FPC holds no power over the editorial decisions made on articles. You cannot push an image into an article simply by having it promoted as an FP. You inserted the image recently into the article[1] and it was not, therefore, stable. The previous image was no more appropriate in that section. Can you please not overcrowd articles with images? In terms of EV, your image duplicates what is already illustrated at the scales section of the article, and your image has little relevance to "wing development" (that's the section that you placed it in), which the image that you displaced, File:Fifthinstarwingdisk.png, very much does. Now you've placed your image such that it displaces the very useful image of the next section down, "Pupa", showing appropriately, a pupa. If you're so keen to have your image in that article, why not get hold of a few good books or articles, and create some specific EV for your image in the article? I close by noting that the stability criterion is not being met, and ask the closer to make a decision that allows this discussion to settle down. One option is to allow Muhammad time to find a better place for the image. Simple reverts or hastened closures will not resolve this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not going to waste my time arguing with you. You put up an image here which you considered to be better. When nobody responded to that, you go on to remove this image from the article. Why don't we let a third party decide if I forced the image in the article in the first place and if it is a good practice to remove an image which is at the brink of being promoted simply because you don't like it. FWIW, the image was stable for more than 1 and a half weeks and was only removed because you saw it here. I stress, a random editor did not remove it and IMO that is stable--Muhammad(talk) 13:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Muhammad, you are not really answering to any of the points PLW made. This is about more than just a difference of opinion. This is about not putting the cart in front of the ox. Images should illustrate an article, rather than having article placements to somehow validate the "value" of an image for FPC. --Dschwen 02:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Papa Lima Whiskey. Images are not independent of articles. On the contrary, they are supposed to complement them and, preferably, should be referred to and discussed in the text. This is considered a sound practise in scientific writing and I can't understand why such principle is not applied in Wikipedia in a more strict way. But I'm just repeating myself: this is a recurring theme of dispute with Muhammad and, before him, with Fir0002. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is fantastic! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp in the corner, dull colors, insufficient resolution or magnification to properly illustrate the subject. This is neither fish nor fow, and does a poor job illustrating either the wing or the scales. Sorry. --Dschwen 02:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not really necessary or relevant in the articles. The alternative is better. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, especially Dschwen and PLM. --Avenue (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]