Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Frog Cake

Frog Cakes

 * Reason:The only image that effecively illustrates the appearance of Frog Cakes, a GA. Without an image like this, the article would be not be able to be described with words only.
 * Articles this image appears in:Frog cake
 * Creator:Bilby


 * Support as nominator --Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The wrapper makes it difficult to visualize the base of the frog cake and thus does not give a complete idea of the shape of the frog cake. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Not to disrespect the image, creator, or promoter, but isn't the point of VP to have exceptional EV? Wouldn't that imply that an image is used in multiple locations, having many uses? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 23:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the quasi-consensus view is almost exactly the opposite -- that we want images that are strong in one article (at least), as we've noticed people will sometimes sprinkle an image into a bunch of articles, even though it's not a really compelling image for any of them. You may wish to read WT:VPC and add a dissenting view if you disagree. Fletcher (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Fletcher. I proposed a new comment after that. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think the wrapper is obscuring too much, and the three colors show the different styles it can be made. You don't get to see inside it as much as the "dissected" frog cake also on that page, but you can see inside enough to tell it looks just like cake. Fletcher (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Weak Support I don't see how this image is educational, especially since you lacked description . Valued pictures is not just about beauty, quality, or impressions; it is also about how educational and value it has, not just for the article, but for Wikipedia as well. If this wasn't the case, we would have thousands of nominations already.  Zoo Fari  23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

--Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)