Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Poppies

Poppies

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2011 at 07:34:46 (UTC)

Reason: good size, lead image in article, nice aesthetics
Articles in which this image appears: Poppy
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator: Eric Hill

Support as nominator --Pine^talk 07:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Lighting is blown, especially along the left side. Detail on the poppy buds is lacking due to light conditions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a good example of where the artsy-ness of the image detracts from its encyclopedic value. While it's a lovely photo, it doesn't tell us much about the subject. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a better caption help? What would you like to see different? Pine^talk 23:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really, unless this is specifically illustrating a trait that I've missed. Compare this to some of our other flower FPs- File:Cypripedium acaule - Sasata edit1.jpg, File:Papaver April 2010-13 crop.jpg (also a poppy), File:Fritillaria meleagris LJ barje2.jpg. Each one of them would have a place in a field guide, but this one wouldn't, as it's just not all that useful in terms of identifying the species/showing what it looks like. These flowers are stunning enough as is, we don't need to do this kind of thing to "draw in" readers. J Milburn (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going out on a limb here, but I feel that the "stimulates reader's interest in the subject" thing is getting side lined. It's reasonably stunning, and it shows basically how a poppy looks. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have to agree with the above. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]