Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hyalophora cecropia caterpillar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hyalophora cecropia caterpillar[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2010 at 03:13:29 (UTC)

Original - Close up of a Cecropia Moth in its caterpillar stage, showing its colorful appearance. The caterpillar reaches up to five inches in length.
Reason
A good image of the character. It is in focus and shows the appearance of the caterpillar very well.
Articles in which this image appears
Cecropia moth
FP category for this image
Animals/Insects
Creator
Michael Hodge
  • Support as nominator --WiiWillieWiki 03:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support and Comment I really like this image. This angle and the way the light reflects off the side of the caterpillar is very interesting and eye-catching. Alas, I fear this one might receive wrath for not having every atom of this thing in sharp focus (depth of field). I personally don’t have any problem with it. Greg L (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Shallow DOF, some parts look completely blown and distracting background. --Muhammad(talk) 06:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Shallow DOF and distracting background? Are you sure that's what you meant? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the distracting background. The crop isn't quite there either- I can see what the photographer was trying to do here, and, if it'd worked, it would have been awesome, but, sadly, it didn't quite. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Make that strong, the image is currently only used in a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the distracting background. --Priest zadok (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. This caterpillar is certainly eye-catching and without blown highlights I'd support. The background seems quite natural and isn't annoying and the angle is also fortunate enough to show nearly all colorful stuff (IMHO). Twilightchill t 14:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support FWIW I'm satisfied with the subject the BG doesn't seem distracting to me. --I'ḏOne 19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Have you looked at how the image is used in the article? J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It really should be in the "life cycle" section. --I'ḏOne 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
        • "Support, should have EV, but doesn't." J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
          • It would if moved to the "life cycle" section... =3 --I'ḏOne 00:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose really not a fan on any level: lighting, composition, background. Cowtowner (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It's the orange and blue appendages that are blown, in the red and blue channels, respectively. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Excellent clarity on the caterpillar, but it needs something more than that to be a featured picture. Haljackey (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Have you seen that the image is currently only used in a gallery? J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • J Milburn, you've failed to notice that the "just gallery" you keep mentioning is labelled "Life cycle gallery" and shows the few and valuable images in it aligned chronologically: Eggs, caterpillar, pupa, adult, mating. --I'ḏOne 17:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • If you think that's fine, then go for it- I don't personally think it is. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - good composition, excellent detail. It's a shame that the background is the same color as the caterpillar, but that and the DoF issues are not enough for me to decline. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)