Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/African daisy

African Daisy[edit]

Excellent sharpness and colors and taken from a slightly different angle than what you typically get for a flower pic. To get the full effect you really need to see it a full res
Note: Yes this is a flower, but I don't think that being a flower automatically makes the image ineligible for FP status. So I would appreciate if people don't just say "oh its a flower, meaning it's inherently pretty and therefore it's not worthy of FP" - please keep it to problems with the image if you do choose to oppose!

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are other problems than this being the photo of a flower. First, it's lacking in enc due to the composition - no whole flower visible. Personally, I don't like the foreground out-of-focus flower partly covering the main one. These are not hoverflies, it's such an easy subject that you could get a much better angle. Fir, echoing an earlier comment about your prolific noms (which I didn't agree with, in priciple), please be very critical yourself about what you nominate - we do expect only the very best from you... (To preclude mistunderstandings, that was a compliment.)--Janke | Talk 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thechnically this picture is way better than that echidna pic. I'd even use this one as a desktop bg, the DOF creates a nice foreground-midground-background effect and gives the picture depth. That beeing said I agree with Janke about the enc (even in principle). I can see how you'd nominate this picture, while the echidna is still beyond me. --Dschwen 08:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As has been said, there is no single flower visible/in focus. The flower OOF closest to the viewer is far too obscuring. As Janke said, this is a flower and can easily be re-shot with a better composition. I don't think being a flower makes it ineligible either, but it is more difficult to make the image 'stand out in the crowd'. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Good quality and interesting angle, but the out of focus foreground flower and the fact that not one is completely shown detracts from the encyclopedic factor. NauticaShad e s 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All of the flowers are either cut off, or blocked by others. And we already have an African Daisy. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do have an african daisy FP, but the existing one is lower res and shows a flower that is either picked to early or is quite old (curled petals) --Fir0002 04:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Puma5d04 05:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pretty but composition isn't overly 'enc', lacks a certain wow-factor for me. --YFB ¿ 02:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]