Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sugar apple with cross section.jpg

Sugar apple and cross section

 * Reason:Good quality, EV. Well known fruit but not many good pictures of it on wiki.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Sugar-apple, Annona squamosa
 * Creator:Muhammad Mahdi Karim


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, never seen one of these before. Nice picture that helps me understand what exactly the article is talking about. I get the feeling there isn't enough space on the right. J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per J Milburn  upstate NYer  01:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per above... interesting subject. Fletcher (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Encyclopedic, well photographed.  Jujutacular  T · C 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Elekhh (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Weak Support per below. :) Elekhh (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit1. Elekhh (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Very well executed image -- Herby talk thyme 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Jujutacular. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝  ( talk ) 17:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, with extra thanks for including the scale. A scale ought to be standard for still lifes like this one.  Spikebrennan (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think scales should not be on the featured version, but placed on another version that is shown in a gallery on the image page of the featured picture.  upstate NYer  22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? They increase the encyclopedic value to the image. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝  ( talk ) 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, they aren't standardized within this project (everyone's are different), second, they aren't always that accurate, and third, they are ugly additions to a featured picture. But showing the image with the scale in the summary box on the image page of a FP (which doesn't have the scale in it) would surely suffice.  upstate NYer  00:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose original. Scale is distracting and unreadable at thumbnail size. Kaldari (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose original, support edit per Kaldari. Scale is original work. I'll support one without one, with a scale version linked on the file page as NYer mentioned. -- Zoo Fari  04:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * not liking the scale is fine but I wouldn't classify it as original research. In the worst case it can be found a botanical dictionary saying that sugar apples are around 4cm. This doesn't contradict this section. Also doing the measurement himself doesn't fall too far from ORIGINAL. Also it seems to satisfy ORIGINAL and if the claim of the 4cm is not challenged maybe it doesn't even need a reference.   franklin   21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with franklin that scale is not original work. On the other hand, I don't see much value in it, as it is visually rather distracting (bottom-right corner would be better), and is not better than the same information being provided in the caption. Elekhh (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To me it is originality regardless of the policy. Since I can't verify that it is correct, then I'm inclined to oppose. All sugar apples vary in size, so I just don't see the need; why not just say it is about (much better to believe than a scale used for precise measurements) 4 cm? PS the other aspects in my oppose. -- Zoo Fari  23:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with you that a caption describing the size range would be better. I still think the image is very good and is no ground for me to oppose it, however I change to weak support. Elekhh (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Classical studio-style photograph at good res, encyclopaedic. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit 1 uploaded Those who prefer the scaleless version please update your votes so we can end this discussion once and for all --Muhammad (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit, although there's a big white splotch where the scale used to be. The rest of the background is a light grey. Might want to fix that. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Muhammad (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original since the actual measurement taken seems reasonable by everyone? Oppose edit 1 per Kaldari and inferior EV. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the measurements are accurate, Prefer original --Muhammad (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original and oppose edit1 -- whether or not it can be seen in the thumbnail, the scale is helpful. -- 188.25.62.209 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original my only worry with scales is potentially misleading inaccuracy. It does add value in this case. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, one thing. I'd assume that the white balance on this is correct (paper as a reference). If so then the white balance on File:Sugar apple on tree.jpg needs correcting. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, with no concern for the scale. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din \talk 23:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)