Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red Flower

Red Flower

Reason: high res, very good quality. Detailed
Articles this image appears in: Aquilegia canadensis
Creator: ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!}

Support as nominator --ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A FPC must be in at least one article as a main or side photo to be eligible for Featured Picture status. It is also recommended that the species of the plant be given for encyclopedic value and support. victorrocha (talk) 1:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Check my comment below. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 01:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know the name of this flower if possible so I may attach it to articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmarkviolinist (talk • contribs)
- You should really do this before nominating... Try at WP:RD or WP:WikiProject Plants. Thegreenj 02:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a columbine, but I'd need more details such as where it was taken before I could specify what type. --Cynops3 (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am quite certain it needs to be rotated 90 degrees. -- carol (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bad photo, doesn't appear in any articles and doesn't even identify the flower so it has no value. Capital photographer (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too much of the flower is not in focus, it's not very clear, it's not in any articles, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above. You really can't nominate it first and then add it to articles later. One of the criteria we're voting on is its value to the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close, unknown subject, appears in no articles.D-rew (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff and Capital photographer; blurred. —αἰτίας •discussion• 11:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose. It's Aquilegia canadensis, but that's a common flower that we have plenty of nice shots of already; this one is unlikely to be used in any articles because of the blown highlights.--ragesoss (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, because it was not just haphazardly added to an article so that it would meet the minimum requirements of this review system. -- carol (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You acknowledge the minimum requirements exist yet you ignore them? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently had to switch out a Delta Rocket image because of this contest. I am truly, honestly and obviously using the situation of this failing image to editorialize, in so many definitions of that word, if not all of them. There have been occasionally the suggestion in the reviews here that the nominated image here was not the best image for the articles it appeared in; I appreciate that others take the time to look into that situation -- but what a pain! And none of that is part of this review system. Where is the clean up section? Feel free to not count my vote here; I did "acknowledge the minimum requirements exist", I did not ignore them though. -- carol (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote, carol. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 02:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the reality of flora photographs, this is really pretty good. It does need the 90 degree rotation, what makes it a little better than just a perfectly sharp, awesome, wowful macro photograph of a flower is that it contains the seed pod. -- carol (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added 90 degree tilt and placed in article. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 12:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it is 270 degrees rotated (clockwise is positive -- should be interesting to see how the word 'clockwise' gets redefined as the world becomes more and more digital. Those digital watches and displays on cellphones -- pretty cool, eh? -- carol (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Prefer this other image for DOF and lighting (but not intending to nominate):

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]