Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Xerochrysum subundulatum

Xerochrysum subundulatum
Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2011 at 03:48:24 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good technical photographic quality. Overall aesthetically pleasing, nice lighting. EV: geocoded in natural habitat, shows two stages of bract development, commons only has two images of this species.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Xerochrysum subundulatum Xerochrysum
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
 * Creator:99of9


 * Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's a nice "icon" type picture of the flower, but I really prefer the "whole plant" shot that is in the file description for encyclopedic benefit.  If I had not seen that would not have known how high the flower grows and how much of a roughish wildflower it is.TCO (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That could be said for any of the pictures in Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers - less than 5 of those show enough of the plant to know the full context. But especially when a shrub is named for its flower (i.e. this is often called Orange Everlasting), I think it's legitimate to feature a picture of the flower alone.  (P.S. Of course I agree that both views are necessary in the encyclopedia article to give a full perspective and maximum EV.) --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you. Obviously each is noteworthy, just feel we are a bit imbalanced to flowers.  I just went and scanned the flowers, fruits, and others directories of plants.  we are very, very heavy on images of flowers and light on images of overall plants.  I think it is more than 1:1 flowers versus overall plants.  And that number of plants includes a lot of nonflowering plants.  (We also have a huge number of FPs of pieces of fruit!  ;)) TCO (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think thinking about targetting ratios or putting limits on categories is a good way to go. If that became mainstream, we would have to stop all animal nominations as they are clearly (by species count) overrepresented in proportion to plants.  We should just be aiming to get excellent illustrations of as many encyclopedic phenomena as possible, and evaluate each on its own merits. 99of9 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with 99, but I'm afraid I don't think this particular picture is up to scratch. It's not stunning technically, and, whilst the composition is rather nice, I don't think it's something that can stand up to close scrutiny. Obviously, a very valuable flower FP would be one that could be looked at closely to idenify certain features of the plant. Compare with the three most recently promoted flower shots- File:Richea Scoparia-2.jpg, File:Notocactus minimus.jpg, File:Cypripedium acaule - Sasata edit1.jpg- all very different, but all, I feel, a level above this one. I'm sorry my criticism isn't very precise. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually think FPC unintentionally selects against whole plant shots. It is hard not to get all sorts of distracting elements, and a clean composition for one species or another. The end result is that it often looks like a snapshot, which tends not to pass. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)