Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stringybark leaf

Stringybark leaf

Reason: Good quality image that shows all the detail of the leaf and would be usefull for identification purposes.
Articles this image appears in: Eucalyptus macrorhyncha
Creator: Benjamint 10:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Benjamint 10:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if I remember correctly, there are roughly 250,000 species of leafy plant. Are we going to feature the leaf of each one? Remember that it will take POTD roughly 800 years to get through them. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PotD decisions are made independently of FP decisions. So we shouldn't let this snark influence our voting. de Bivort 20:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... [1] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we get a featurable picture of the leaf of every plant species, we'll be doing very well. If each of those photos illustrated a specific article on the species, I see no reason not to feature them. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Leaves are beautiful. --Blechnic (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You shot the underside of the leaf but offer it for detail for "identification purposes," but the plant descriptions on line for this species discuss the color and sheen of the adaxial of the leaf for id. California oaks, for example, have species that require examination of the underside of the leaf for identification purposes. There are 6 billion humans, so no more people FP, living or extinct.... Also, if you shoot this again, get a longer adult leaf with the curve rather than an in-betweener. --Blechnic (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A high quality and accurate representation. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support While it's the underside of the leaf, the quality and encyclopedic value of the image remain high Capital photographer (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than the fact, that is, that it doesn't show "all the detail of the leaf" and that it would not "be useful for identification purposes," and that it's caption is wrong, as it does not show a "slightly glossy green leaf" because that is a description of its upper surface, not its lower surface. So, EV, maybe, but not the EV raised in this FPC. Also, this leaf is supposed to have a dented petiole or something that might also be used for identification surfaces and may be visible when shot from the upper surface. EV must actually be seen, not what would be seen if different view of the specimen had been captured instead. --Blechnic (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We should probably have a standard that says both sides of the leaf have to be shown (but obviously, feel free to use to different leaves). I still think the FP category should be restricted to subjects that hold some promise of "wow". And isolated leaves on flat surfaces are probably not it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per criterion 3—how is this picture special among high quality leaf pictures, which can't be that hard to make? Thegreenj 01:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose so devoid of context as to be unencyclopedic. There isn't even a shadow here to tell us the 3 dimensions exist. pschemp | talk 13:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough encyclopedic value. Such an image should minimally show several leaves on a branch of a tree. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-14 13:53Z
Oppose as per pschemp. Donama (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very dull image. Dwayne Reed (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]