Support edit for its softer edges on the flower, mostly. Neutral original.--
HereToHelp(
talk to me) 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit beautifully composed.
DurovaCharge! 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak support I'm kinda with Brian, but I love the elegant composition. --
Blechnic (
talk) 23:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Very pretty. But for
Narcissus pseudonarcissus it does not show enough detail, specifically to illustrate the appearance of this species as opposed to others in the same genus. Nice to look at, high artistic value, low encyclopedic value.
Dwayne Reed (
talk) 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit. A very good, high quality image that perfectly illustrates the article.--
Polymath618 (
talk) 08:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Dwayne Reed. The artsy composition seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia (but wonderful for just about anything else).
Cacophony (
talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. Highlights are slightly blown I think but in this case it doesn't actually look too bad. Great, simple composition.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 12:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Its a good picture certainly, but I don't think it adds to the article at or all, nor does it have a good caption. Seeing as it fails 1/4th of the FP criteria, I vote no.
smooth0707 (
talk) 15:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose I like the composition but i find the detail on the flower itself lacking.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 08:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's a good photo, but when trying to demonstrate the article, there's no real need for 75% of the photo to be just empty grass.
¢rassic! (
talk) 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose It'll do great on Commons, but for Wikipedia, it's too wide a crop.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong support A fantastic image, both enc. and artistic. I don't know, there's something I really like about this image. The flower seems lonely.
TheOtherSiguy (
talk) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Has value and aesthetics.
victorrocha (
talk) 03:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Desperately needs a heavy crop (will support if one is made).
Mostlyharmless (
talk) 04:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit Looks good, if you have an edit with the subject on the right, I would support a desktop POTD as well. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amckern (
talk •
contribs) 04:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit for its softer edges on the flower, mostly. Neutral original.--
HereToHelp(
talk to me) 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit beautifully composed.
DurovaCharge! 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak support I'm kinda with Brian, but I love the elegant composition. --
Blechnic (
talk) 23:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Very pretty. But for
Narcissus pseudonarcissus it does not show enough detail, specifically to illustrate the appearance of this species as opposed to others in the same genus. Nice to look at, high artistic value, low encyclopedic value.
Dwayne Reed (
talk) 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit. A very good, high quality image that perfectly illustrates the article.--
Polymath618 (
talk) 08:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Dwayne Reed. The artsy composition seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia (but wonderful for just about anything else).
Cacophony (
talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. Highlights are slightly blown I think but in this case it doesn't actually look too bad. Great, simple composition.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 12:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Its a good picture certainly, but I don't think it adds to the article at or all, nor does it have a good caption. Seeing as it fails 1/4th of the FP criteria, I vote no.
smooth0707 (
talk) 15:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose I like the composition but i find the detail on the flower itself lacking.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 08:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's a good photo, but when trying to demonstrate the article, there's no real need for 75% of the photo to be just empty grass.
¢rassic! (
talk) 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose It'll do great on Commons, but for Wikipedia, it's too wide a crop.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong support A fantastic image, both enc. and artistic. I don't know, there's something I really like about this image. The flower seems lonely.
TheOtherSiguy (
talk) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Has value and aesthetics.
victorrocha (
talk) 03:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Desperately needs a heavy crop (will support if one is made).
Mostlyharmless (
talk) 04:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit Looks good, if you have an edit with the subject on the right, I would support a desktop POTD as well. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amckern (
talk •
contribs) 04:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply