Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Meadow Argus02.jpg

Meadow Argus

Reason: I noticed this adding an image of my own. Fir has taken a number of superior Meadow Argus images and this one really isn't featured quality.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Meadow Argus butterfly
Nominator: Noodle snacks (talk)

Delist — Noodle snacks (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Noise or over-compressed? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Agreed that the macro bar has risen considerably since that was promoted and Fir would no doubt agree. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He actually has quite a few better images of this species sitting on commons doing nothing. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True those are of higher technical quality thanks to advances in my camera gear, but this one is very strong compositionally. With the single head of grass bent delicately under the weight of the butterfly and the green background contrasting with the orange colouration of the wings, this shot IMO is very strong photographically if not technically. --Fir0002 00:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since i don't have the technical knowledge i will refrain from voting, but i agree with Fir002 that the composition is great. I went to the Meadow Argus page, and it is clearly the most striking picture there. Therefore, i think it would be a shame to delist this one without a suitable replacement... Noodle, could you please give us a link to one of the better, unused picture you told us about ? Ksempac (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've used a gallery since there are a few. All of these are technically better and hence make better illustrations in my view:
(pity about the wing) seems to be a common feature of photographed Meadow Argus' :) --~~~~

Noodle snacks (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the composition of the third one, but dislike the blurred wing on the foreground. On the other hand, I LOVE the fourth one. BTW, can someone explain me what are the technical flaws of this FP ? I'm still unable to spot them (or maybe that's because the body seems blurred ?)Ksempac (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Watching the picture at the full size and comparing it to others current nominations, the technical flaws are obvious. Ksempac (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted MER-C 02:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]