Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Heteropteryx dilatata.png

Heteropteryx dilatata

Image taken by neighbour, who agreed at the time that all rights be released to me or any purpose or licence I see fit. Subject is my pet, and the colouration has not been modified. Image featured in Phasmatodea, and is high-resolution (1232x824px).

Nominate and support. - Ian13/talk 20:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Ian13/talk 22:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry this isn't good enough for FP. The depth of focus is too narrow and less than half of the subject is visible. ~ Veledan • Talk 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Only the ends of the hind legs and the back of the wings/body are missing. Ian13/talk 21:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the missing part longer than the visible part? Apologies if not. Even so, I'm afraid animal pics fail to get promoted for far lesser portions missing. And there are several other pics on that page which give a better impression of these insects as a whole IMO. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, more is visible than not, no problem. Thanks! Ian13/talk 21:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camera newbie here ... how exactly would you get a wider field of focus? Different lens? What would be different about that lens? --Cyde Weys 04:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not much chance of this pic being Featured, I'm afraid, too much of the pic is out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 21:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same as above--K.C. Tang 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great value artistically, and no doubt a great portrait of your pet (should there be an article on pet portraiture?). This kind of picture is usually more successful on Commons, where accurate and complete depiction is less of an objective, and artistic value enters into consideration. Oppose. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 12:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Veledan, and disagree with the above comment: artistic value ought to be considered here, too. –Joke 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Incomplete animal (How are we to know what the tail end looks like?) and too shallow DOF. Interesting critter though! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support an awesome photo, and you even have the species name. Not really missing much with the focus as is, and if it were any wider angle you'd lose the detail of its head. —Pengo 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness and brightness --Fir0002 www 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Four of the five visible legs are blurred, though the resolution is of respectable size. Alvinrune ^TALK 03:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good pic, is interesting image- not an everyday sight Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]