Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catopsilia pomona (Emigrant butterfly) on Tagetes lucida.jpg

File:Catopsilia pomona (Emigrant butterfly) on Tagetes lucida.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2019 at 08:13:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family_:_Asteraceae_(Sunflowers)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compared to this FP of the same butterfly on the same flower, I think this one has much better light, a nicer background, a larger depth of field, and 3,3 times more pixels -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This same exact butterfly? Wow ... how do we know these things?

Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how do we know this is a Catopsilia pomona, because we ask specialists

and because Wikipedia is here of course :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Forewing completely out of focus. Jee's photo should not have been promoted to FP in my view. Charles (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your review looks a bit familiar . At least, the back wings are sharp :-) But compared to yours, I think the flower also makes the difference -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the flower is pretty, but the back wing is also very blurred. I think the difference between our two nominations is that mine is in focus, but has less a bit less definition as it is a close up of a tiny butterfly. Charles (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree yours has less definition, but on a creative level its aspect is also too ordinary in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a portrait. It's a such a pretty and rare species (unlike Catopsilia pomona!), I don't think it needs a flower to make it interesting. And it lives in a forest where there aren't pretty flowers anyway... Charles (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a VI, yours -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This also looks like a delist and replace nom to me.--Peulle (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other one is a female . But you can delist it if you want -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I don't think either of these should be FP. Not enough is sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FP the other one, no, but this one yes, definitely. It's a composition of flower and insect. Could even be nominated in the category plants, I think. Very sharp the butterfly, 75% of its elements like crispy (legs, belly, back wings, head...) I think this is much more artistic than most of the other FPs focused only on the animal or on the plant with nothing else -- Basile Morin (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point about the flower. I'll cross out my opposing vote. But I don't really think the butterfly is sharp enough to support this for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have this butterfly sharp "all the way" too, but prefer this picture with a better bokeh. We have a lot of butterflies with blurry flowers, this one on the contrary is a nice Tagetes in focus with a lepidoptera in focus too, and just a minor part of it out. The flower is nicely open, attractive with great color -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer that one and would probably vote to support it for FP if nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In terms of composition, Jee's is the better photo. This one seems unbalanced, centred, and the background has intrusive lines. I suggest you experiment with a crop. -- Colin (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've cropped it to a square, but the main problem in Jee's Catopsilia pomona in my view is not its composition, but really its harsh light, and also the lack of details. The background here is better I think, and the orientation of the flower also -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; Jee's is the better image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly. But not at all . Jee has captured several excellent pictures of butterflies, unfortunately this one is certainly the worse of them... At least on this point I agree with Charles and Ikan it should not be FP. It was not good at the beginning promoted in 2012, but in 2014 another version has been uploaded with even worse light. Very harsh, IMO, and blown highlights. The tips of the flower are hard yellow, and compared to mine, the body of the animal is dull with absolutely no texture -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I have changed the category to Plants, since we already have a flower with insect there, we can renominate later this similar combination of flora / fauna, but now it's such a bad start I chose to close it -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]