Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Kiwi aka.jpg

Kiwi_aka.jpg

 * Reason:Good quality picture of a kiwi, nice colors and illustrates the article well.
 * Articles this image appears in:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwifruit
 * Creator:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aka

Oppose I would like to see a bigger/larger image. This picture is decent...ok. Lacks "wow" factor --Vircabutar 08:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator &mdash; Code E 19:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Making me hungry. Adam Cuerden talk 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Illustrates the article well, good colours and focus. So yeah.. -- Ch ild zy ( Talk 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose While the image is encyclopedic and all, its a tad small, ok, its not too small in general, but its easily reproduced, so it should be bigger.  Y zm o   talk  23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, perfect. -- Phoenix2  (holla) 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, It just doesn't look very interesting. 8thstar 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral good image and all, but in an encyclopedia, I'd expect to see more of the plant than just what the consumer's presented with at the fruit market. —Pengo 03:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * weak oppose considering reproducibility - should be spot on. I also don't like how the seeds reflect bluish on the left half and green on the right. Debivort 04:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as with the other Aka photos that are already featured. This method of presentation is elegant and simple and clean and very encyclopedic. You can see the whole fruit and you can see a cross section. This illustrates the fruit. I think a more natural image may be good to illustrate the plant, but there is no way you'd get a cross section like this in nature, and a non-neutral background would distract from the subject matter. FPs don't have to entertain. They can just be well executed, and informative (and aesthetically, this image is beautiful to me, but that is subjective).-Andrew c 04:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Although the picture is very good, I think it would be better to see more of the plant.-Jetset59 08:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support-Although more of the plant would be better in some ways, this picture is very good. It is very clear and colorful and it easily allows people to see a good kiwi.  Agree with Andrew c.-Jetset59 08:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Enc, adequate quality. I would also like for it to be a bit bigger, but you can still look at this and know exactly what a kiwi fruit looks like.  I eat them without peeling.  --TotoBaggins 16:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Though I too would prefer something slightly larger.--HereToHelp 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose There doesn't seem to be anything there other than kiwis. It wolud be better if there was an interesting background, but for now it's just...a bunch of kiwis. A kiwi, by itself, is not an interesting-looking fruit. Oppose. Arius Maximus 14:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support If Fir's tomatoes and someone's lemons are interesting enough to be FP then why not kiwifruit? Yes the quality is not as good but still acceptable. Comment You guys eat Kiwis? You should be ashamed of yourselves, eating a threatened, protected species. --antilivedT 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support I agree with comments made by Antilived... Fir0002 has made many similar images (of lemons and whatnot) and another user's images should also be able to go to FP status if they are so similar... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booksworm (talk • contribs) 2007-06-25T05:05:34
 * Comment The lemons came from the same source, a(nother) prolific and talented commons contributor. For me, the issue isn't so much "that one was promoted, therefore.." or "enc, technically good, best we have, etc" but whether, overall, this is a compelling picture, one which draws in an otherwise passive viewer. In this respect (in my opinion, the most important FP criterion) this image is borderline, as would be any of these "straight" studio-style shots, no matter how technically accurate they might be. Great quality, just not featured pictures. mikaultalk 08:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I do like the picture, and I'll probably never understand the "it's just not feature-worthy, even if it's very good" idea.  It'd be nice to have a larger picture though, one where you can see the texture of the skin or pulp better.  ShadowHalo 06:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, those tomatoes are POD today, a good opportuniy to decide whether this type of shot is compelling FP/POD material or not. mikaultalk 11:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I said it on Fir's pathetic tomato and I'll say it again here - by accepting this kind of generic, technically fine image, but devoid of imagination, and quite simply completely bland, you've opened a floodgate whereby every single image that depicts any fruit or vegetable and is technically sound has to be accepted. However, if you still think that this picture "Is among Wikipedia's best work", then by all means support it. Also, people are complaining that the owl in the photo below is not in its natural habitat - why can't the same be said of here? Surely it's very artificial to take a kiwi that has been processed to no end, packaged up, placed in a supermarket, then cut by a knife and placed on some white paper - is that natural?? All I'm saying is, a well taken photo of a kiwi plant being naturally grown would be a hundred times nicer. Schcambo 11:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not be too hasty with the disparaging comments about other people's work. These studio shots are deliberately "bland", in keeping with traditional encyclopedic illustration in which a subject is removed from its environment and placed on a context-free, neutral, "scientific" background. It's a time-honoured way of exhibiting specimens "on a level playing field", allowing objective comparisons between different exhibits. I'm sure you know this. It's 100% encyclopedic, to the point of having 0% drama in the image. What this doesn't square with is the need (I agree there's a need) for a "wow" factor, something compelling in the image, and I honestly don't know whether this precludes this kind of image from featured status. I know there are several contributors here who actively look for something compelling in a image before they'll even muster the enthusiasm to comment, let alone support a submission. All things considered, I'd support this kind of shot for FP, but only if we raised the tech quality bar way high. This one wouldn't make it, but for criterion #1 reasons, not for lack of natural context. mikaultalk 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Excellent shot, I have great admiration for Aka and his work --Fir0002 23:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Great picture that clearly illustrates the subject of the article. Wikipedia isn't a photography magazine, so I don't really see why we need a "wow" factor. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 08:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 03:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)