Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2010 at 10:58:50 (UTC)

Reason

10 megapixel image of the kiwifruit, the original is an FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Kiwifruit

FP category for this image

Plants/Fruits

Creator

Luc Viatour, Papa Lima Whiskey (exposure edit)

• Support as nominator -- Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 10:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Weak support. It's a shame the back fruit is out of focus (a stack would have been possible) but a solid candidate nonetheless. J Milburn ( talk) 11:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• While the image is fine, I am not sure it has more EV than the previous FP or other commons pics: File:Hardy-Kiwi-Comparison-3.jpg, or File:Owoce Kiwi.jpg. Nergaal ( talk) 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Are you in favour of overturning the delisting, then? Because there was no consensus in its favour, and I raised the issue and received a number of inappropriate responses - see here. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 21:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Now that it has been delisted I am neutral. The one proposed here is more clear and of better quality. Still, I think that the two might be of even higher EV. File:Owoce Kiwi.jpg probably has the highest EV, but I might be wrong. Nergaal ( talk) 05:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
      • If it were the case that people favoured that, we certainly wouldn't promote it as-is, because it's heavily downsampled, and we've generally felt, I think, that it's better to use {{ Multiple image}} to have more layout flexibility. And DOF is really very narrow in the hardy kiwi image. I'm not sure it could be promoted. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 07:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Weak support as JM said. The use of multiple image template makes sense (though the merged image itself can easily get to 5kx5k by using the sources). Hardy wiki would be a fine candidate by itself as it can be used in subspecies article (not in the main kiwi one). Nergaal ( talk) 09:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support: quite nice, good resolution. The previous FP is not as good as this one, in terms of resolution and quality, and has similar EV. I also think the back half-kiwi being out of focus is compositionally fine, as it's there only to complete the scene anyway. Maedin\ ^talk 08:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support Would be totally unpatriotic of me not to support this photo. Any idea of the cultivar? Aaadddaaammm ( talk) 19:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • You could try the photographer, because I'm not an expert. It's probably whatever is the main cultivar sold in Belgium, and that would likely be the one that's happiest with transport. Don't know if that can point you in the right direction. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 06:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose I think there should also be a perpendicular sectioning though the fruit for full EV; like the one in File:Golden kiwifruit.jpg or at: http://en[dot]fotolia[dot]com/id/6777045. Nergaal ( talk) 07:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'm a bit puzzled now - none of the images you were advocating earlier do this, nor is there any precedent for it in other FPs - see Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 08:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Agree. I realized this while looking at the starfruit (wondering how does it look longitudinally); since kiwis are common, there is no good reason not to "describe" the fruit cut along the other direction also. I think this should be true for all common fruits (though I am not going to go through old FPs and mass nom them for removal). Nergaal ( talk) 18:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The back fruit being so badly OOF is a really bad mistake here. It should either be photographed properly (ie in focus) or not in the picture at all. Also I a perpendicular section of the fruit would be more beneficial. I don't see the fact that its 11mp alone being anywhere near worthy of FP status, it's incredibly easy to reproduce a better quality image. JFitch (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support High ev and quality. -- Extra 999 ( Contact ^me + _contribs) 13:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Not promoted -- Jujutacular  ^talk 18:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• 4.5 of 5 required supports. Jujutacular  ^talk 18:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply