Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lycoperdon pyriforme

Lycoperdon pyriforme
Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 16:01:43 (UTC)
 * Reason:I believe the technical standard is comparable to other fungal FPs, the resolution is ~3x the minimum, and the image has high EV in the species article. In my biased opinion, the image is interesting and compelling enough to induce some readers to click to find out more. Please note that from 2003-2008, the species was known as Morganella pyriformis, but new phylogenetic evidence indicates the old name is a more appropriate choice. I will update the species article soon, but need an admin to move over a redirect for me.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Lycoperdon pyriforme, Puffball
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Fungi
 * Creator:Sasata


 * Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Nice picture, but some indication of scale would be good. P. S. Burton  (talk)  21:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lucky for me, I collected this specimen. How's it now? Sasata (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Support edit.  P. S. Burton  (talk)  00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support original with edit Support edit Burton, good idea! On the other hand, put the scale on the original.  Fungi are function of moisture content, so you really can't size them? Good placement of the scale, and great photo, Sasata 8)  Gut Monk (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it's only now I notice I put the scale bar on my unedited version... but comparing the two now, I'm not completely convinced that one is better than the other. The original was slightly sharpened and had the levels tweaked slightly; as a result its colors are slightly more vivid and shadows darker. Preferences? Sasata (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say, put the scale on the original. P. S. Burton  (talk)  09:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support version with scale. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Good specimens, fantastic EV, good technical quality and a great composition. J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Supprt: with scale Good EV. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support version with scale. --Avenue (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Technicals are not up to par in my opinion. It is quite noisy, and possibly oversharpened? May I ask (unless I'm mistaken) what post-processing was done on this picture?  Jujutacular  talk 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was cropped, sharpened, and had the levels adjusted. All three were minimal (IMO). Sasata (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose scale version. Scale should not have text on it. Use the caption to specify the length of the scale. Kaldari (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reasoning? This opinion does not seem consistent with the majority of other other current FPs with scale bars. Sasata (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way why not just support the original then? -- I'ḏ ♥  One  16:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 5/7 supports for the scale version with nominator (4/7 with -1- oppose to it). -- I'ḏ ♥  One  19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)