Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Apple mango and cross section.jpg: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:50, 8 June 2010

Apple mango and cross section

Reason: Good quality and EV. Compared to the current FP it shows a different cultivar and also shows the seed. IMO both show different features and hence can be both featured.
Articles this image appears in: Mango, List of mango cultivars
Creator: Muhammad

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hmm, it's tough, I think your photo is the equal of Fir0002's but I'm not sure if it differentiates itself enough from it. You know what would be ideal? Combining Fir's images with yours. ;-) You could turn it into a really wide image! No, I'd say it has just enough EV to pass. You're right, it does illustrate a different cultivar and is probably more realistic in appearance. Fir's is a little too perfect. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support. This image is too similar to Fir0002's. If it had a better license, I would suggest doing a delist and replace, but as it is, I see no reason to favor this image over Fir's and the article doesn't need both, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless it actually becomes an issue, you need to stop voting on the basis of licence preferences. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikimedia and FPC both allow GDFL-1.2 only so IMO, not a valid reason to oppose. That said, I don't mind releasing this image under a different license. So, Done --Muhammad(talk) 04:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to clarify that I wasn't opposing specifically due to the file's license. I was opposing because I didn't think that the article needed both images and there was no reason to prefer using this image over the other one in the article. Now that this image can be migrated to cc-by-sa, however, which is a much freer license than GFDL, I would prefer that this image be used in the article. I don't see why the freedom of the license isn't a valid consideration. To me it seems analagous to considering the resolution of the image. Just as I wouldn't object to an image solely because it was only 1001 pixels wide (as that meets our requirement), I also wouldn't object to an image solely because it is GFDL 1.2-only. I think it is perfectly fair, however, to include either of those issues when weighing the pros and cons of the image. Kaldari (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Shows the pith. Higher EV than the other one. Lycaon (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support replace per Lycaon. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting. Dark shadows and over contrasted flesh/skin tones - fruit doesn't look natural. --Fir0002 12:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Which mango species is this? List here. With current article placement, I find that enc. is more on the low side, if it's not in the species (like the comparative FP). Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Species is Mangifera indica as mentioned on the image page in the description. --Muhammad(talk) 21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow. Can't believe I missed that. Thanks, Muhammad. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The top 2-4 pixel line at the top needs to be cropped—some irregular shading is present. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, can't see what you are referring to. Could you upload an edit with area highlighted? --Muhammad(talk) 04:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I see it. Uploaded edit --Muhammad(talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Support edit 1 per above, but do not replace. There is room for both FPs, IMO. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support:~~ Support either, but prefer edit 1: For several reasons, I think this is superior to the current FP. The cross section actually shows the juiciness and texture of the fruit, as well as, crucially, the pith. The background is more uniform in colour and less pink/grey towards the bottom. I thought the other was too bright and hurt my eyes; the lighting here I far prefer. It's more natural. Like PLW, I would support a replace. Maedin\^talk 06:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's sing the chorus one more time, with feeling. "Needs a size reference!" Spikebrennan (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded Edit 1 includes scale per Spikebrennan and cropped out some irregular shading mentioned by Spencer --Muhammad(talk) 18:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Edit 1 Spikebrennan (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Scales are the best ! Ksempac (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to hear the mango song by Phish. now wiki ppl, please dont find that offensive173.54.200.196 (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Apple mango and cross section edit1.jpg --wadester 16 01:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 **'''Support Edit 1''' [[User:Spikebrennan|Spikebrennan]] ([[User talk:Spikebrennan|talk]]) 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Support Edit 1''' Scales are the best ! [[User:Ksempac|Ksempac]] ([[User talk:Ksempac|talk]]) 10:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' I want to hear the mango song by [[Phish]]. now wiki ppl, please dont find that offensive[[Special:Contributions/173.54.200.196|173.54.200.196]] ([[User talk:173.54.200.196|talk]]) 02:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 <!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
 {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:Apple mango and cross section edit1.jpg}} --'''[[User:Wadester16|<span style="color:darkred">wadester</span>]][[User talk:Wadester16|<span style="color:darkblue">16</span>]]''' 01:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)