Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Poppy
A lovely photo of a red remembrance poppy at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra.
- Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 02:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I support yet another work of brilliance and tranquillity from Fir0002. Merry Christmas. Phoenix2 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- My God, that's an amazing photo. Strong Support —Vanderdecken∫ξφ 11:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sigh, this is only used in the Poppy article. But it is an artificial poppy. How is this contributing significantly to that article? --Dschwen 12:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- In that case, it should be removed from there, or put in a section about symbolism, and instead put in articles like Remembrance day or Armistice. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 13:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I removed it from the Poppy article. A pic would have to be replaced in Remembrance Day. From the encyclopedic value I don't feel the move justified, maybe from the aesthetic value. Another pic I'd rather see at commons FPC. --Dschwen 17:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I dunno, it might make a good comparison to the photo of the UK poppies. Maybe replacing the dark and quite small image second from the top? --Fir0002 08:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- The annoying thing is, that you picture looks really good :-). But the second one on Remembrance day shows the poppies in context on the crosses, which has a higher encyclopedic value IMHO, so I wouldn't go and just replace it. After all this is an encyclopedia and FPC is not my newest pretty pics but precisely what it states in the first paragraph on top of WP:FPC. --Dschwen 09:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- In fairness, I believe the poppies are in a similar context in Fir's photo--a wall of remembrance, unless I misread the caption. The caption ought to clearly identify that fact (
as it doesmy mistake, the caption doesn't, but the nomination does...the caption ought always to note the Wall of Remembrance, in my opinion), but I think the context is seeable even without caption help. While the photo is atmospheric, I can't help wishing the poppy in focus was one whose face was at the camera...the side/back view of the flower is distracting to me, and less effective. Not sure about my vote here. Jwrosenzweig 23:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- In fairness, I believe the poppies are in a similar context in Fir's photo--a wall of remembrance, unless I misread the caption. The caption ought to clearly identify that fact (
- The annoying thing is, that you picture looks really good :-). But the second one on Remembrance day shows the poppies in context on the crosses, which has a higher encyclopedic value IMHO, so I wouldn't go and just replace it. After all this is an encyclopedia and FPC is not my newest pretty pics but precisely what it states in the first paragraph on top of WP:FPC. --Dschwen 09:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- I dunno, it might make a good comparison to the photo of the UK poppies. Maybe replacing the dark and quite small image second from the top? --Fir0002 08:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- I removed it from the Poppy article. A pic would have to be replaced in Remembrance Day. From the encyclopedic value I don't feel the move justified, maybe from the aesthetic value. Another pic I'd rather see at commons FPC. --Dschwen 17:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- In that case, it should be removed from there, or put in a section about symbolism, and instead put in articles like Remembrance day or Armistice. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 13:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support - TomStar81 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Neutral, looks like you found a good place for the pic, the Remembrance article. While I'd prefer it to be the other way around (have the pic in an article and then considering it for FPC) it is arguably an eye catcher. Then again, looking at the article, it is one single scentence and a bible quote. --Dschwen 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'll rather go with Flcelloguy and oppose as well. --Dschwen 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - doesn't really contribute to the article. In fact, it's not really an article - it's a dicdef with a quote. I'm going to AfD that article; perhaps another suitable article could be found for this good picture? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - --Deglr6328 07:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I think this image has at least some value in showing the poppy in the context of the wall. Furthermore, I believe the image has captured a suitable essence of tranquility well. enochlau (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral - It bothers me slightly that the poppy is fake.. not sure it would so much if it were a little more obvious that it was fake, though. (Not sure how you'd acomplish that, so, maybe not.) Also there appears to be part of a dandelion hanging off of one of the flowers.. and the in-focus poppy at the top is chopped off. Also, the depth of field appears to be tampered with.. it cuts off pretty quickly? (More like part of the image was blurred with a computer.) Because you have such excellent photos, I hesitate opposing, it is still a nice, crisp, clear image that does feel serene.. drumguy8800 - speak? 04:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- No that's natural bokeh, f/3.5 at 75mm can make some pleasing effects. Interesting comment though on it bothering you that it's fake but only because it isn't obvious! Thanks for your opinion though --Fir0002 05:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Very striking photo. Dramatic, high quality and shows the remembrance poppy in context. - Cuivienen 17:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC
sorry unregistered users can't vote. --Deglr6328 20:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- My apologies, I thought I was logged in at the time. - Cuivienen 20:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Remebrance poppy ww2 section of Aust war memorial.jpg Raven4x4x 05:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)