Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vlaai

Vlaai

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 21:21:08 (UTC)

Reason: With sharp focus and neutral background I think it would make a valuable addition to the Food gallery. The image was previously orphan. Time to eat :)
Articles in which this image appears: Vlaai, Dutch cuisine
FP category for this image: Food and drink
Creator: Vlario

Support as nominator --Twilightchill t 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support yummmy! Nergaal (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the image quality is quite good; you can even see the individual sugar crystals! However, the top part of the picture is not as sharp as somewhere in the middle, since it is not coplanar with the plane of focus and I imagine no tilt-shift lens was used. Excellent nonetheless. Good encyclopedic value. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks almost edible. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 01:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose The artificial white background.Shroomydan (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this a cookie or a cake? It needs a size reference or size mention in the caption.
- From what I know it's a cookie, but don't know its usual size. Twilightchill t 08:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Shroomydan as this gives us absolutely no hope of guessing how big this thing is. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch version of the article says that it is "usually with a diameter of 27 to 30 centimeters". Nergaal (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This puts it at 28-30. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea ok, thanks for the info, but are you gunna be there standing behind everyone that looks at this image, whispering in their ear "they're typically 27-30 cm"? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose agree with size. Looks like a gigantic lattice cherry pie. Not keen on the floatyness of it, either. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added diameter to the main article. The magnified image is actually what is to be expected from FP candidate. Twilightchill t 08:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A diameter in the article doesn't help the image. FPs are expected to be magnified? I may not know much about photography but that statement sounds ridiculous. The Prague nomination below this one should be 100 miles wide then. Matthewedwards : Chat 17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This could be easily fixed through caption (the scale would look moot on such subjects I think, as this is not a scientific image). Twilightchill t 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Floating effect is disconcerting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent illustration of the subject, and I enjoy the detail in the sugar crystals. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 08:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not so sure how EV this is. It could be any old lattice pie. SMasters (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the images of vlaai and lattice pie, you'll see the difference in pattern (the lattice pies have bigger grid). Twilightchill t 08:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 supports and 5 opposes; 2 of these oppose votes seem to have been addressed. Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which two opposes have been addressed? For the two that I think you may be referring to, I disagree. On what did you base your assessment that they've been addressed? Maedin\^talk 20:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's and SMaster's. Nergaal (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discounting votes is tricky business. If they changed their mind based on others' arguments that's one thing, but otherwise... Jujutacular ^talk 09:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the opposers' concerns about the picture were not dealt with, it's just that things were explained to them. Compare- if someone opposed a pic of a bug based on the fact there was no scale bar, and a scale bar was then added, it would be fair enough to discount their oppose. In this case, someone opposed based on the lack of a sense of scale- someone then said "oh, it's x-sized"- a very different thing. If someone opposed a black and white picture of a flower saying that they couldn't tell what colour it was, someone striking that vote because the photographer replies "oh, it's red" would be ridiculous. The same here (with Aaadddaaammm's oppose, especially). J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, if my reasoning above doesn't convince you, here's my "vote"- this looks to me as a clear not promote. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 21:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]