Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Forest in Autumn

Forest in Autumn

 * Reason:Illustrates the change in color, and the eventual falling of leaves in Autumn.
 * Articles this image appears in:Temperate deciduous forest, Autumn
 * Creator:Sodpzzz


 * Support as nominator --Sodpzzz (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose This image does not do justice to the beautiful autumns of New England and elsewhere. I can find several images that are more striking in the Commons category.  Cacophony (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OpposeA potentially nice image, but not using a cir-pol has yielded sub-optimum contrast and saturation and flat sky.. Capital photographer (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral, while I like the composition and colours, I agree that we have better illustrations of "autumn" available than this. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 13:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this is rather a nice image. It shows the forest at several scales, from leaf litter on the ground to nearby trees, to the look of the forest on the other side of the river. In including the river and broken tree, it gives an idea of the dynamics of this landscape. It's clearly remote, and little maintained by man. Nonetheless there's not much brush, and I get a good feel for the spacing of the trees. If I could have had a wish, I might have expanded the framing on the right hand side, to include more of the nearby trees, and what looks like a path. On the whole, though, it's a superb illustration of this biome. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Snapshot. I also agree with Cacophony. ¢rassic ! (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Can people please take into account the picture's inclusion in temperate deciduous forest? Opposing it because you don't like its inclusion in autumn isn't doing full justice to the nomination. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I suppose. It is nice enough photo (one of the better ones at Autumn), and does show falling leaves pretty well; not so much the colors.  As for "remote and little maintained by man", I don't know, it looks more like a canal to me, with probably some maintenance by man to keep the grass as grass rather than shrubs (hard to be sure, though). I don't know, I don't really vote on featured pictures enough to really have a good feel for what I am comparing it with. Kingdon (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The forest is clearly second-growth (like virtually all the forests of the eastern US). The leaf litter is a plus from a descriptive viewpoint, but that's not brought out in temperate deciduous forest.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The encyclopaedic value of the image would be enhanced if a more specific location was given on the image description page. Location-specific information could then potentially be referenced to determine the species mix and the land use history - this could lead to more informative captions for the image in the articles Melburnian (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding Cacaphony's comment, this is a late Fall image, it isn't appropriate to compare it to the forest at the height of its colours.  The only tree with leaves is an oak to the right of centre in the foreground.  The rest of the trees have dropped their leaves, although there are some bits of green along the riverbank - some grasses, and perhaps a shrub (largely obscured by the oak).  I think it does capture this sort of "sad" time in late Fall when everything is dead, but it isn't quite winter yet either. Guettarda (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose A picture on such a subject needs real artistic merit to stand out. This unfortunately does not, and it is not sufficiently visually appealing. To start with it should be set up with a good composition, which it does not have. There is not enough story or added elements to make up for this and for me it does not convey atmosphere strongly enough. Motmit (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 09:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)