Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sugar apple with cross section.jpg

Sugar apple and cross section

Reason: Good quality, EV. Well known fruit but not many good pictures of it on wiki.
Articles in which this image appears: Sugar-apple, Annona squamosa
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, never seen one of these before. Nice picture that helps me understand what exactly the article is talking about. I get the feeling there isn't enough space on the right. J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per J Milburn upstate NYer 01:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above... interesting subject. Fletcher (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Encyclopedic, well photographed. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per above. Elekhh (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Weak Support per below. :) Elekhh (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Edit1. Elekhh (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well executed image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jujutacular. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with extra thanks for including the scale. A scale ought to be standard for still lifes like this one. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think scales should not be on the featured version, but placed on another version that is shown in a gallery on the image page of the featured picture. upstate NYer 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? They increase the encyclopedic value to the image. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, for one, they aren't standardized within this project (everyone's are different), second, they aren't always that accurate, and third, they are ugly additions to a featured picture. But showing the image with the scale in the summary box on the image page of a FP (which doesn't have the scale in it) would surely suffice. upstate NYer 00:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original. Scale is distracting and unreadable at thumbnail size. Kaldari (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, support edit per Kaldari. Scale is original work. I'll support one without one, with a scale version linked on the file page as NYer mentioned. --Zoo Fari 04:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not liking the scale is fine but I wouldn't classify it as original research. In the worst case it can be found a botanical dictionary saying that sugar apples are around 4cm. This doesn't contradict this section. Also doing the measurement himself doesn't fall too far from Wikipedia:ORIGINAL#Routine_calculations. Also it seems to satisfy Wikipedia:ORIGINAL#Verifiability and if the claim of the 4cm is not challenged maybe it doesn't even need a reference. franklin 21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with franklin that scale is not original work. On the other hand, I don't see much value in it, as it is visually rather distracting (bottom-right corner would be better), and is not better than the same information being provided in the caption. Elekhh (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me it is originality regardless of the policy. Since I can't verify that it is correct, then I'm inclined to oppose. All sugar apples vary in size, so I just don't see the need; why not just say it is about (much better to believe than a scale used for precise measurements) 4 cm? PS the other aspects in my oppose. --Zoo Fari 23:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you that a caption describing the size range would be better. I still think the image is very good and is no ground for me to oppose it, however I change to weak support. Elekhh (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Classical studio-style photograph at good res, encyclopaedic. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 1 uploaded Those who prefer the scaleless version please update your votes so we can end this discussion once and for all --Muhammad(talk) 01:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit, although there's a big white splotch where the scale used to be. The rest of the background is a light grey. Might want to fix that. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Muhammad(talk) 01:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original since the actual measurement taken seems reasonable by everyone? Oppose edit 1 per Kaldari and inferior EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the measurements are accurate, Prefer original --Muhammad(talk) 01:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original and oppose edit1 -- whether or not it can be seen in the thumbnail, the scale is helpful. -- 188.25.62.209 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original my only worry with scales is potentially misleading inaccuracy. It does add value in this case. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, one thing. I'd assume that the white balance on this is correct (paper as a reference). If so then the white balance on File:Sugar apple on tree.jpg needs correcting. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with no concern for the scale. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sugar apple with cross section.jpg —Maedin\^talk 23:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]