Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Notocactus minimus.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2010 at 20:29:35 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good EV and quality, I thought it was a very interesting picture. Plus FWIW featured on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Notocactus minimus (now redirects to Parodia tenuicylindrica)
- FP category for this image
- Flowers or Other plants
- Creator
- User:Laitche
- Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. Gut Monk (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support good quality, striking, and has enough educational value. Clementina talk 06:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Right now, we really can't start to make a judgement about it, because we have an unreferenced, one-line stub with incorrect formatting that is uncategorised- you'll note that the genus article redirects to an article on a cacti genus with a different name. If the redirect is correct, this article is wrong. Either way, this really needs cleaning up... J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've moved the article to the correct title and added a reference. I'll see what I can do about expanding it (certainly something, though maybe not loads) this evening. J Milburn (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- According to the genus article a whole bunch of genuses (geni?) have been grouped under the one you redirected them to more recently, Notocactus in particular and apparently there's some controversy over the decision. A successful search engine image search[1] for Notocactus minimus shows that N. minimus is apparently still in use, even by the photographer who labelled it N. minimus in the image description in 2008 (which BTW was what I went on when I began that stub). Could you add some links about the reclassification, and did they really change the species name? --I'ḏ♥One 16:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Genera. If the genus was synonomised with another, then yes, the species name would be changed; that's how taxonomy works. I've expanded the article. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ugh, and I read taxonomic articles all the time, back to Latin 101. Great job, no comparison at all to when the article was only a stub. --I'ḏ♥One 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Renamed everything I think. --I'ḏ♥One 19:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ugh, and I read taxonomic articles all the time, back to Latin 101. Great job, no comparison at all to when the article was only a stub. --I'ḏ♥One 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Genera. If the genus was synonomised with another, then yes, the species name would be changed; that's how taxonomy works. I've expanded the article. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- According to the genus article a whole bunch of genuses (geni?) have been grouped under the one you redirected them to more recently, Notocactus in particular and apparently there's some controversy over the decision. A successful search engine image search[1] for Notocactus minimus shows that N. minimus is apparently still in use, even by the photographer who labelled it N. minimus in the image description in 2008 (which BTW was what I went on when I began that stub). Could you add some links about the reclassification, and did they really change the species name? --I'ḏ♥One 16:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've moved the article to the correct title and added a reference. I'll see what I can do about expanding it (certainly something, though maybe not loads) this evening. J Milburn (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support; not to get existential, but I wrote an article, so I must like it. I will also note that this looks much better close-up. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Avenue (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support Lovely Image. JFitch (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Notocactus_minimus.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
