Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Celosia

Celosia cristata
Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2011 at 06:40:50 (UTC)
 * Reason:High EV, good capture showing good detail of the unique flower.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Celosia cristata, Celosia
 * FP category for this image:Nature
 * Creator:Anupam

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariya1234 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose (not to be negative...you do way more than I do.) FYI, I actually like that pic stuck down in gallery better for EV and even as a picture.TCO (reviews needed)  05:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Hariya1234 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Subject is OOF, nothing special...  ■ MMXX  talk  12:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose agree with Mmxx, subject is OOF.  Pine (was GreenPine)  talk 21:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It’s a very good photo, it catches the weaves and folds of the plant’s head beautifully and is very well placed in the article. I think it comes very close to FP credibility: however, some of the plant’s head (particularly to the right) is out-of-focus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TehGrauniad (talk • contribs) 00:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Comment' Thanks a lot for feedback guys, I think I'll have to re-click! Hariya1234 (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Comment' In that case, the original image should be re-instated. Hariya1234 (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant I liked this pic better.  Now squashed down into gallery at the very bottom, it is the shot that tells me what the plant actually looks like a bit more.  Should be up in the article somewhere, even if you use a "head shot" for the lead.  I'm kind of down on our tight cropped bloom pictures.  It would be one thing if they accompanied decent plant pics, but I really think they are leading to an attitude of pretty snapshot over EV illusttration or even thinking the plant is the flower.TCO (reviews needed)  14:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)