Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Banksia lindleyana
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 04:31:57 (UTC)
- Reason
- visually vivid and striking. Nice deep blue Australian desert sky contrasts with yellow flowerspike. Depicts some pollinators (ants) as well as progression of anthesis (bottom 1/4 of flowers opened) Background is comparatively free from detracting details.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Banksia lindleyana
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
- Creator
- Casliber
- Support as nominator --Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose the crop, the uncropped version in the history shows more of the plant's structure, and might be able to support that, but I don't like the crop. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- yeah, wasn't sure whether to focus on the flowerhead or include more of the plant. Do you think the plant detail would help? If so how would you crop original? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the original doesn't really follow the rule of thirds very well, do you have anymore shots? — raeky (talk | edits) 15:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes but none as clear as this one. Most others have flowers at least partly obscured by foliage. I just thought the colours and detail of this were great when I took it. I am a novice at photo composition and FPC. If there is no way this can be cropped from the original a different way should I withdraw it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would support the original, it's technically good and although not ideally shot (due to the subject in the center and to much sky to the right side of the frame), it does provide lots of EV to the article, is the best illustrative photo we have of the flower. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Rather than completely uncropped, would it be worth removing just some sky only on the RHS? Or do you think that would unbalance the composition unduly? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- You could remove some of the bottom to keep the prospective right, the dead flower thing in the upper part adds to the EV. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, will do that when I get a chance on my computer with my editing program etc. Back soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- You could remove some of the bottom to keep the prospective right, the dead flower thing in the upper part adds to the EV. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Rather than completely uncropped, would it be worth removing just some sky only on the RHS? Or do you think that would unbalance the composition unduly? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would support the original, it's technically good and although not ideally shot (due to the subject in the center and to much sky to the right side of the frame), it does provide lots of EV to the article, is the best illustrative photo we have of the flower. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes but none as clear as this one. Most others have flowers at least partly obscured by foliage. I just thought the colours and detail of this were great when I took it. I am a novice at photo composition and FPC. If there is no way this can be cropped from the original a different way should I withdraw it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the original doesn't really follow the rule of thirds very well, do you have anymore shots? — raeky (talk | edits) 15:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- yeah, wasn't sure whether to focus on the flowerhead or include more of the plant. Do you think the plant detail would help? If so how would you crop original? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OK how's that? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's better, probably should restart the nomination time for that, and put the nomination for the better composition. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. Shall I withdraw the first and have it archived then, and restart with the second one afresh? Casliber (talk · contribs)
- Just write "I withdraw" and let the closers do their job. As soon as it's closed (it doesn't even have to be archived), you can start a new nomination. Make sure to link back to this discussion in the new nom. NauticaShades 08:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. Shall I withdraw the first and have it archived then, and restart with the second one afresh? Casliber (talk · contribs)
(outdent) okay, I withdraw (looks at watch and taps fingers) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn --— raeky (talk | edits) 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)