Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ariadne merione butterfly.jpg

File:Ariadne merione butterfly.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 06:54:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ariadne merione butterfly.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ariadne merione butterfly.jpg

•  Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ragged wing edges, stingy license, ?downsampled. --99of9 (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry but my picture, my license. And there are over 45 pictures from me with the same license, in fact an image with the exact same license was just promoted today. --Muhammad (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Of course it is your choice of license, just as it is my choice of vote. I simply feel that stingy licences are a negative for reusers, and thus weigh against my desire to promote the image to reusers in featured galleries. Yes, there are plenty that have been passed with this license, even some I support, but the image has to be just that much better to outweigh this. I will try to be more consistent in noting it in future. --99of9 (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, but that's where you're wrong. I can use any license that meets the requirements (and the current one does). And you, cannot oppose if the license meets the criteria. --Muhammad (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
        • To me, part of "most valuable" is its useability, and value is the primary criteria I'm meant to be assessing for. I admit that there is no other discussion of licensing in the FP criteria beyond commons requirements. But if you're going to bring up the letter of the law, perhaps some of those 45 need to be reviewed from the perspective of the very clear rule Images should not be downsampled. 99of9 (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
•  OpposeSame as 99of9. The license is indeed a little stingy. Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
•  OpposePer 99of9. The message of the picture should be the beauty of the butterfly and not its age or weakness. So certainly no FP with these ragged wings! --McIntosh Natura (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I see nothing wrong with the license, as for the ragged edges, what would you like the author to do, glue it back together? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ragged wings -> Find a nicer subject to take a featured photo of. Not all subjects are featurable. 99of9 (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Ragged wings are a reality. If we had only pretty pics, how would we illustrate aging? --Muhammad (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - the bug bar is very high. Jonathunder (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • And how does this image not meet the bar? --Muhammad (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree. That's like opposing every image on FPC because "the FPC bar is very high". Comments like this are not helpful. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support While I see the point made by 99of9, I myself am not going to oppose an image when it's fine of Muhammad to license as he wishes (within acceptable licenses, of course). On another note, the raggedy wings and age are fine by me - I feel that the aspect of realism is certainly a good one. Just because it's a butterfly doesn't mean that it has to be portrayed as a young, healthy, specimen; nature is nature, and if a picture conveys it in good quality, then more power to it. No need for a bloated fantasy - let's bring some of the grim of the world into here, even if its just a butterfly. In a way, that's an art in itself ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support If only to balance the opposition due to the licensing. Is the image free enough to be on Commons? Yes. Then it is featurable. End of discussion. J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The subject is fine, the license is fine, however, the overall image quality is not fine. For being just over 2MP it should be very sharp, however several wing edges are not. Also, a geotag would be nice. --Relic38 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Maybe the bug is old, sick or got in a fight with a bird, in that case it's understandable to feel sorry for it. Otherwise, the photo is good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)