Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Waterlily

Waterlily


This beautiful, blue waterlily is shown at the peak of its bloom. I'm pretty proud of how this pic turned out and I think that I finally have something worthy of becoming a Featuring Picture. This image can be found in the articles about Hodges Gardens, Park and Wilderness Area and Nymphaeaceae.


 * Self-Nominate and Support. - GarrettRock 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose weakly. Sorry, very nice pic, composition and subject, but it's out of focus. Lovely resolution though. And as an afterthought, I don't think userpages qualify for articles pics are used in ;). &mdash;Vanderdecken&there4; &int;  &xi;  &phi;  ' 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I disagree with Vanderdecken. The photo is barely out-of-focus and only so at its highest resolution. Really great picture, actually. Dessie
 * Above user "ButterLips"/"Dessie" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I could see it was out of focus from the thumbnail...&mdash;Vanderdecken&there4; &int;  &xi;  &phi;   17:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Out of focus and slightly grainy. --Pharaoh Hound 19:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. If one were to scrutinize every current FP, there would be many that are more out of focus than this. It's a pretty flower with good framing and color. --Preyquis 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is user's first WP edit. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support edit. The pale blue color of the petals is amazing.  My edit was an attempt to address some of the concerns expressed above.  I think it turned out nice, though it is slightly lower resolution. -- moondigger 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you SO MUCH Moondigger. The picture look marvelous.
 * Comment. Once again Fir0002, can you explain what changes you have made in your edit? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like a brightened version of Edit 1. A little more saturated, too. -- moondigger 12:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support original or edit 1. (Oppose edit 2 - too bright.) --Janke | Talk 12:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Striking my support due to sockpuppeting by the nominator (see: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/GarrettRock.) A pity, it's a pretty good photo, but we can't allow this kind of voting abuse. --Janke | Talk 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-06-14 13:06
 * Support edit 2. Anonymous_  _Anonymous  14:36, 14 June 2006 (UT
 * Support Excellent photo. Perfect angle, pedals are well-defined and vibrant colours. Excellent spacing and contrast- best photo of a water lily I've seen. Christine
 * Above user "polarqueen"/Christine is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

tiger35
 * Weak support edit 1 It's an alright photo, just wish the lily were a little more in-focus. --Mad Max 02:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It is a very good photo, but it isn't all that exciting. It's just a plain picture of a flower. :) Froggydarb 08:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good picture. I like the detailed center and the bright colors.
 * Above user "tiger35" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Another close-up of a flower? The color is astonishing, but why does every other picture have to be a flower close-ups? Why can't it be a picture of the roots? The leaves? Or the rhizome? --Hecktor 20:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent picture. Encylclopedic and informing- I think this is a great illustration of what a waterlily looks like in the center. fpwannabe
 * Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Aside from the possible sockpuppet issues, this picture is very nice but sadly less encyclopedic than I would wish as it lacks a species/variety name. Any chance you could add this info in the description?--NoahElhardt 22:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As I am in no way affiliated with the so called "sockpuppets," I don't mind if these users are blocked. As for the questions of the encyclopedic nature of this photo, it is part of the family called Nymphaeaceae. There is no more specifics as to genuses, let alone species, of this family on Wikipedia currently. -- GarrettRock 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, check out Nymphaea (the genus). Several species already have their own pages. --NoahElhardt 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. You're right! It's definately a Nymphaea caerulea. -- GarrettRock 23:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. You can never be too sure when it comes to what water lily variety that is. I highly doubt that is Nymphaea caerulea. As you can see, the stamens are different in color and shape. The petals are also different in shape and color. This waterlily is most likely a hybrid with some parentage from Nymphaea colorata. --Hecktor 08:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Beautiful picture, but it does not enhance the article Water lily compared to existing picture. The defining characteristic of a water lily is the pads which are too discrete in this picture. The existing picture is much better suited as there is instant recognition of the plant. &mdash;Jens Nielsen 08:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. See here: ; the first picture on this site looks exactly like the picture here, a Nymphaea caerulea. -- GarrettRock 15:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would rely on a site like that. One can easily take a picture of a blue-colored waterlily and post it on a site and say it is N. caerulea, but does it mean it actually is? Here are two links to a more reliable source: N. caerulea N. colorata. This cultivar is possibly one called 'Pamela' but again, it's really impossible to be sure, because there are so many hybrids out there. --Hecktor 09:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Its a pretty good photo, but its species is in question. Also agree with Janke -Ravedave 03:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't have the extras to be featured. But the cheating from the submitter doesn't help either. Janderk 11:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Cropped too tightly.  Agree with Jens Nielsen above. (Forgot to sign Slow Graffiti 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

--Fir0002 01:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)