Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Canna sp.jpg

File:Canna sp.

Reason: Good quality and EV is also good as it shows the flowers in different stages.
Articles this image appears in: Canna (plant)
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems a bit over-filled with flash, and possibly a little over-sharpened too. Good colour though! --mikaul^talk 09:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No flash used at all, check the EXIF. --Muhammad(talk) 11:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I already did, right after I typed that :o/ – it's quite unusual lighting, as if there are two sources, one distant and one local. Where was it taken? --mikaul^talk 12:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Taken on Mt Kilimanjaro at app 1800m altitude. --Muhammad(talk) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Oppose~~ Support Actually I think the lighting is quite good as is sharpness etc. ~~However, I don't think this has sufficient identification - almost all the other images in the article at least have a common name identification.~~ There are some issues with the composition, IMO the centre of the flower should have been in the centre of the frame rather than the back of the flower, but its not too bad --Fir0002 11:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely a simple crop can fix the composition, right? --Muhammad(talk) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Crop would imporve the composition somewhat but then it becomes a bit cramped and you're likely to cut off part of the leaves. However, my bigger concern is with the identification, if you can get this identified to the level of the other images in the article I'd switch to a weak support --Fir0002 03:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I find those twigs in front of the flower a little distracting. Don't crop though, IMO the leaves should remain as an important factor. A removal of that streak on the left would be appreciated. Zoo Fari 15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What twigs are you referring to? I think you may be mistaking the dead flowers for for twigs.--Muhammad(talk) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dead flowers, eh? By now I have taken my pills. Somewhat obscuring the flower. They are part of the plant, I assume, so it adds a little EV though. Zoo Fari 03:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - just good enough for me. If possible, would have preferred a crop with more space on the left, and less on the right, but it's ok. (Oh, what Fir0002 said). Would be full support with full identification. (Do wild flowers have cultivars? Forgive my ignorance.) Stevage 08:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Identified The ISHS pointed me to some resources, its a Canna 'Pretoria' ~~Canna americanallis var. variegata~~ --Muhammad(talk) 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How sure are you on the ID, because I just did a quick google search and the leaves on your photo look nothing like this --Fir0002 23:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fir0002's right - the leaves in this photo don't look variegated (ie, they're just green - not striped with white). Stevage 05:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am no expert but they look variegated to me. Regarding the difference in the leaves Fir, there is a difference within the species as can be seen here, so within the cultivars is also expected. To be on the safe side, I have struck out the species name but I strongly believe it is a Canna Pretoria. --Muhammad(talk) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Variegation and different flower colours can naturally occur with many plant species, so I'm satisfied. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Question mark over ID reduces encyclopaedic value and has recently led it to being removed from the article: See Talk:Canna (plant)#Photo not correct. Melburnian (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest withdrawing until it can be id'd. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Very good color balance, but may be a little simple. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{__Ξ_} . -- 02:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw for now. I have written to other botanists and will renominate the image later. --Muhammad(talk) 05:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator --wadester 16 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]