- Reason
- Good quality, EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Aneilema aequinoctiale, Aneilema, Commelinaceae
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator -- Muhammad (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- A beautiful picture, yes. But its EV is questionable as both articles are stubs and the image was forced into them. IMO this is against the spirit of FPC, where only the images with exceptional EV value for the articles they actually illustrate should be promoted. Welcome to Commons FPC... --
Alvesgaspar (
talk)
01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody forced the image anywhere. One article had no picture of the flower and the other had
this very low resolution, and bad quality picture. Since when is replacing such an image with a superior one as this called forcing? --
Muhammad
(talk)
04:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's a good idea to put the existing image into a <gallery> environment at the bottom of the article, to allow other editors to decide what to do with it (not everybody wants to have to check the edit history to see if there are older images to be found). Alternatively, make sure the previous image is properly categorised at commons, and use {{ commonscat}}. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 14:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody forced the image anywhere. One article had no picture of the flower and the other had
this very low resolution, and bad quality picture. Since when is replacing such an image with a superior one as this called forcing? --
Muhammad
(talk)
04:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support Per Muhammad. Nobody denies it is a very good image of a very beutiful flower, and IMO it adds EV to the articles it appers in-- Mbz1 ( talk) 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. It seems like its a bit underexposed. Noodle snacks ( talk) 01:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support. Not wild about the image, but it seems ok. I realise this isn't a very helpful comment, so feel free to ignore it. J Milburn ( talk) 18:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looks like some motion blur, as there's a general lack of sharpness. Also not a big fan of the composition. Good, but just doesn't quite stand out enough as a flower FP for me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: I think the composition is lacking, enough to merit a weak oppose. Two quite distinctive features of the plant (which will be unfamiliar to the majority of readers) are the cincinnus arrangement of the inflorescences and the single pair of petals on the flowers. I don't think this photograph captures these elements well enough. See here for a comparison. Having said that, I've created the article on the species and the image should be on the main page for DYK soon. Maedin\ talk 21:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Makeemlighter ( talk) 04:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Aneilema aequinoctiale, Aneilema, Commelinaceae
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator -- Muhammad (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- A beautiful picture, yes. But its EV is questionable as both articles are stubs and the image was forced into them. IMO this is against the spirit of FPC, where only the images with exceptional EV value for the articles they actually illustrate should be promoted. Welcome to Commons FPC... --
Alvesgaspar (
talk)
01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody forced the image anywhere. One article had no picture of the flower and the other had
this very low resolution, and bad quality picture. Since when is replacing such an image with a superior one as this called forcing? --
Muhammad
(talk)
04:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's a good idea to put the existing image into a <gallery> environment at the bottom of the article, to allow other editors to decide what to do with it (not everybody wants to have to check the edit history to see if there are older images to be found). Alternatively, make sure the previous image is properly categorised at commons, and use {{ commonscat}}. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 14:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody forced the image anywhere. One article had no picture of the flower and the other had
this very low resolution, and bad quality picture. Since when is replacing such an image with a superior one as this called forcing? --
Muhammad
(talk)
04:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support Per Muhammad. Nobody denies it is a very good image of a very beutiful flower, and IMO it adds EV to the articles it appers in-- Mbz1 ( talk) 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. It seems like its a bit underexposed. Noodle snacks ( talk) 01:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support. Not wild about the image, but it seems ok. I realise this isn't a very helpful comment, so feel free to ignore it. J Milburn ( talk) 18:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looks like some motion blur, as there's a general lack of sharpness. Also not a big fan of the composition. Good, but just doesn't quite stand out enough as a flower FP for me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: I think the composition is lacking, enough to merit a weak oppose. Two quite distinctive features of the plant (which will be unfamiliar to the majority of readers) are the cincinnus arrangement of the inflorescences and the single pair of petals on the flowers. I don't think this photograph captures these elements well enough. See here for a comparison. Having said that, I've created the article on the species and the image should be on the main page for DYK soon. Maedin\ talk 21:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Makeemlighter ( talk) 04:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)