Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Muscari, vegetative reproduction
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2010 at 22:34:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- I think it is a great image. Furthermore, the accompanying article is very informative, especially this section. I literally will plant my dahlias like potatoes because it taught me something.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Vegetative reproduction, Muscari
(If this wins FP, I'll move this to the article's lead-in image.) - FP category for this image
- Plants, flowers
- Creator
- Gut Monk
- Support as nominator --Gut Monk (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I would not advise swapping out the lead image of the article just because this is awarded FP status, if it is. If it is, it will be because of its value in vegetative reproduction, not because it would make a better lead image than the other. Choices about the lead image should be made based on what is best, not based on what has a gold star for its use in another article. J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I concur, also the genus lead image should ideally be the type specimen/species for the genus... This image isn't identified down the species level, so it definitely shouldn't be used as a lead image. — raekyt 05:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like M. botryoides or M. latifolium, possibly M. armeniacum. Couldn't find M. dionyscum or M. pinardis but someone else could try. I would like to see the nominated image brightened up a bit (hyacinths smell great BTW). --I'ḏ♥One 16:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- This 100% without a doubt NOT M. armeniacum, this is some large variety, not one of the miniature varieties like M. armeniacum. Without identification from an expert botanist, and identification from picture alone could be impossible, it's best to leave it at Genus level. — raekyt 21:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- This one looks kind of small to me, maybe 9in. tops, this looks like a big hyacinth. I guess support though I still would like to see the image brightened, the bg in particular because it seems drab and grey, maybe blur out the wilting shrubbery. --I'ḏ♥One 18:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I totally agree. Somehow M. Grandmas-muscari doesn't cut it for me. Gut Monk (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- This one looks kind of small to me, maybe 9in. tops, this looks like a big hyacinth. I guess support though I still would like to see the image brightened, the bg in particular because it seems drab and grey, maybe blur out the wilting shrubbery. --I'ḏ♥One 18:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- This 100% without a doubt NOT M. armeniacum, this is some large variety, not one of the miniature varieties like M. armeniacum. Without identification from an expert botanist, and identification from picture alone could be impossible, it's best to leave it at Genus level. — raekyt 21:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like M. botryoides or M. latifolium, possibly M. armeniacum. Couldn't find M. dionyscum or M. pinardis but someone else could try. I would like to see the nominated image brightened up a bit (hyacinths smell great BTW). --I'ḏ♥One 16:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I concur, also the genus lead image should ideally be the type specimen/species for the genus... This image isn't identified down the species level, so it definitely shouldn't be used as a lead image. — raekyt 05:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator I can edit the heck out of this, and I want to find the software to do it. Will renominate in the future. Gut Monk (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
