Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kniphofia uvaria

Kniphofia uvaria
Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 15:56:21 (UTC)
 * Reason:Strong EV, high quality and good composition
 * Articles in which this image appears:Kniphofia uvaria
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
 * Creator:99of9


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nomination. --99of9 (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose unfortunately. I think we could do with some more 'whole plant' images along with our many predominantly flower-only plant FPs, and this is nicely composed and shot. Sadly the main bush at the left, and particularly the flower spikes, are just too soft focus and lacking in detail. And to add a non-criteria value judgement, I must say that this loses some points with me for being an environmental weed in the location in which it was photographed (sort of like how some people are rather anti photos of animals taken in zoos and the like). Remove this objection since I've now updated the article to reflect this point and added the EV for it; perhaps someone should have done it beforehand. --jjron (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For those following on from this review: When evaluating sharpness, please take into account that my images are not downsampled. Viewing full-res is at 10 MPx, well beyond our requirements, so naturally I could have downsampled to make it appear more sharp (but there is good reason not to do so). --99of9 (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why I made the point about the lack of detail on the flowers; it's not just about sharpness. Whether or not you upload full-res is your prerogative, but downsampling isn't going to add any more detail. --jjron (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I think the technical aspects are good enough. Clegs (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Strikes me as just a snapshot - the lighting, background and too-wide framing just don't make for a good photo. And I guess the bar is always pretty high with flowers and plants as they are pretty static subjects where you are more or less completely in control... --Fir0002 12:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this has focus issues. Pinetalk 06:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think it's snapshotty. Moving slightly to the right may have given us a view of three different plants instead of two but not sure what other compositional effects that would have had. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I think people are being a little harsh; photographs which provide a little environment can be useful as well as the macros. This'd make a great postcard. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This shot was deliberately chosen to capture the whole plant, with reasonable margins, and some environmental context. While I agree it is not perfectly sharp at full resolution (kit lens), the resolution is well above FP standards.  IMO there is plenty of detail in the flowers, although in a full-plant shot we should not expect to see everything (just as, say, in a picture of a camel, you would not expect to see detail in its eyes). I would not vote to feature on Commons, because it doesn't have "wow".  So it was good to see the nomination here where the emphasis is much more heavily on EV. --99of9 (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I would have preferred a deeper DOF in the background to make the plant stand out more and less environmental context. It's a great photo though. Definitely meets quality picture guidelines on Wikimedia commons. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Do you mean a shallower DepthOF (to blur the background)? If so, that's usually right, but I wanted to ensure that the entire front clump was in focus (which even as it is, some above have claimed is not the case). --99of9 (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant.126.109.231.71 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to sign in to vote. Anonymous votes are generally disregarded. O.J. (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

--Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not enough support, and outweighed by opposition ( 2.5 3 O vs 4.5 S). Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're omitting someone's !vote, please specify whose and why (and also why you are counting the IP contrary to all historical practice). Thanks, --jjron (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. I count 4.5 to 2; you have to omit the IPs vote. Still probably fails due to no quorum (needs 5 supports, right?). Clegs (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to exclude mine, Fir's, or Pine's votes, which makes for 3 straight opposes (excluding the IP's). --jjron (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Corrected, and yes, the result is not affected. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)