Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tulip at Floriade

Tulip at Floriade

Original - A cultivated Tulip (from the family Liliaceae) at Floriade, Canberra Australia.

Reason: The image has high encyclopedia, aesthetic and technical quality. I beleive the image is as good as or better than the present FP image of a tulip Image:Tulip - floriade canberra.jpg and is superior given that is depicts a single tulip in detail against a contrasting background rather than several similar tulips.
Articles this image appears in: Tulip
Creator: Capital photographer

Support as nominator --Capital photographer (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice picture but you may need to find another place for it since you removed a FP from the article to replace it with your image. BTW, Good to have you back. Consider uploading your pictures to wikimedia so that they may be available for other wiki projects as well. Muhammad(talk) 16:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The replacement was reverted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops sorry, I didn't know FPs were treated specially with regards to replacement in articles. I have placed the image in the article again in a different place. Capital photographer (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - FPs are given priority in articles not because they are FPs but because they are superior, which the FP designation recognizes. Plus, FPs must be used in articles in order to gain and maintain their status. But don't worry, there's plenty of room.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low encyclopedic value. It mainly just clutters the article, I think the article is better off without it. Narayanese (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a tulip in an article about tulips and isn't the worst shot in the article by far. Any chance you care to explain that a little more since it seems to me that Image:Pink_tulip2.jpg and Image:Konyatulip.jpg are much worse shots technically and the pink tulip in front of a building shot has absolutely 0 encyclopedic value. Cat-five - talk 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Image:Konyatulip.jpg shows how you grow tulips. Technical quality does not help if the picture doesn't illustrate anything (and given the great lead picture, this one doesn't). Narayanese (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support While the current FP is sharper, with water droplets clearly visible and and more detail on the background tulips, this one devotes twice (eyeball guesstimate) the screen area to the primary tulip.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This one is imo definately more useful at thumbnail size than the other image, and clearer, it is soft even when scaled down though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle snacks (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Out of focus on petals nearest and furthest away. Appears to have an artificial outline - looks oversharpened at the edges, even if it may not be. The current FP wins, IMO. Easy to shoot a better one, so keep trying... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose - I just don't like flower-head shots that lack the context of the rest of the plant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Medium oppose - Not perfect background, too dark in the bottom. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 21:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]