Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sugar-apple

Reason: I think its an encyclopedic image and I do not see anything wrong with it.
Proposed caption: Annona squamosa is a semi-evergreen shrub or small tree reaching 6-8 m tall. The fruit is usually round or oval, slightly pine cone-like, 6-10 cm diameter and weighing 100-230 g, with a scaly or lumpy skin. The fruit flesh is edible and white to light yellow. The seeds are scattered through the fruit flesh; they are blackish-brown, 12-18 mm long, and hard and shiny.
Articles this image appears in: Sugar-apple
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No, definitely not. Bad quality. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like MER-C already pointed this out above, but you really should provide reasons. FPC is not a blind up-or-down vote; oppositions especially should mention specific concerns that can be either addressed or evaluated for validity. And I just wanted to take this opportunity to point out that "No, definitely not. Bad quality" is pretty harsh, bordering on offensive, and not constructive criticism. FPC is a place to identify wikipedia's best pictures, but in many ways it is also a forum for peer review and discussion. --Malachirality (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exposure is very bad and the picture is blurred, too. Altogether: Not more than a averagely picture, nothing to be featured. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Mainly because the solid black background looks unreal but also because of the limb behind it distracting from the main focus and being in the way, in terms of the main subject itself it's a good shot though. Cat-five - talk 06:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose Focus and exposure are just fine but lighting is awful, background provides no context and the specimen appears to be damaged. --mikaul^talk 11:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Cat-five points out, the composition could be better, but what really bothers me is that the absence of daylight makes the colours rather non-vivid. Is there a good reason this was shot in low lighting? Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]