Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Butterflies, Alpine Botanical Garden Juliana.jpg

File:Butterflies, Alpine Botanical Garden Juliana.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2010 at 13:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded & nominated by Miha (talk)
Support --Miha (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - species need identification. The flower is a species of Echinops; the red "butterflies" are actually a species of Zygaena (a genus of day-flying moths), possibly Zygaena filipendulae (not sure what other similar species might occur in the area though). - MPF (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice compostion, but the with part in the middle of the top is disturbing and the DOF is much too low imo --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- The colourfull moths are probably 6-spot Burnets (Zygaena filipendulae) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Carschten, I'd definitely would be in support of this if it were sharper. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Seems sharp to me, (but then again, I haven't been doing this for long), so I give my support - HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor dof--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Flower name is Echinops ritro subsp. ruthenicus (Bieb.) Nyman - in Slovenia only 3 spiecies Echinops grow in nature and only one of them is blue.--Pinky sl (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Commons FPC has a general minimum of 2MB filesize requirement. - IdLoveOne (talk) IdLoveOne (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info He's made a big mess, hasn't he? Wolf (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really, a little one maybe, and I had already voted neutral anyways. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above DOF. --Karel (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)-[reply]
Oppose Nice omposition, but too few things are in focus here. --Quartl (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]