Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Butterfly transparent.jpg

Photograph of a Greta morgane edit

Original - (Translation from German on commons) Greta morgane (Geyer, 1833) source: Own admission - photographer: Achim

Reason: I feel that the picture definitely meets most of the 9 criteria with only a couple of doubts.

Is of a high technical standard. Done

Is of high resolution. Done more than meets 1000x1000 criteria

Is among Wikipedia's best work. Done defintitly IMO, is compelling and would make reader want to learn more (both in optics and the page for the reature itself), well lit and amongst best insect photographs on WP

Has a free license. Done licensed under GNU 1.2

Adds value to an article Done illustrates insect well in its own page as well as a useful tool for shoing transparency

Is accurate. (only criteria I'm unsure on)

Has a good caption Done is decribed within its page well and includes links to appropriate articles.

Is neutral. DoneNo POV issues.

Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation? not in a position to comment as I'm not a photographics expert but it's free of the most obvious usual distortions.

Articles this image appears in: Transparency (optics), Greta morgane, Greta (genus)
Creator: Achim Lehle (Commons Username)

Support as nominator BigHairRef | Talk 00:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way way to much noise. --Mike Spenard (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wow. It not only has considerable noise (or maybe filmgrain), but it is also unsharp and has very little detail. This offers way less resolution than a 1000x1000 picture with decent definition. Too bad, the subject is kind of nice. --Dschwen 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to noise. Cacophony (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, very bad technical quality. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 07:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horrible quality. "Over 1000 px" doesn't mean a thing here - looks like this is upsampled from a lower res, noisy digital original or grainy film. --Janke | Talk 08:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Aqwis and Janke. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment whilst I agree there is some noise this is a picture which suffers from quite a degree of unproducability. The butterfly itself is not that common and there's not a reasonable prospect of gettting a better one. BigHairRef | Talk 06:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment in all the articles where this will be used the scaling is almost certain to be such that the noise can not be seen. I know it's not an official criteria but per Dschwen the subject of thepicture should have some bearing. BigHairRef | Talk 06:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Some noise" is the understatement of the week... ;-) Also, please note that FPs are NOT chosen on the basis of thumbnail images, they are always judged at full size. --Janke | Talk 07:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some noise? I saw a photograph of atom with less noise :-).--Svetovid (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]