Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nectarine Fruit Development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Nectarine Fruit Development

Original - The development sequence of a typical drupe, the nectarine (Prunus persica) over a 7½ month period, from bud formation in early winter to fruit ripening in midsummer (see image page for further information)
Original - The development sequence of a typical drupe, the nectarine (Prunus persica) over a 7½ month period, from bud formation in early winter to fruit ripening in midsummer (see image page for further information)
Reason
Very high encyclopaedic value, very useful, nice quality.
Articles this image appears in
Fruit, Peach, Drupe, Prunus
Creator
jjron
  • Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - just what an encyclopedia needs. --Janke | Talk 12:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Janke, well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - high quality, highly encyclopedic. Xenus (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Cacophony (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The individual pictures are available at a resolution of 1200 by 800 px, and there's no reason they should be any smaller than that when assembled into a poster. Other than that, looks good—I'll be happy to change to support once that's fixed. Thegreenj 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Feeling rather stupid now... Support Thegreenj 02:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Support-Very encyclopedic, very well done. ~Meldshal42 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. As Thegreenj mentioned, there is no reason for each image to be a much lower resolution than it previously was. This can easily be fixed. In which case, I will suppport. NauticaShades 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. It would seem I made a mistake. NauticaShades 22:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per thegreenj. I thought that was raised and understood when alvesgaspar nominated his composites. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The resolution of the image is 2,440 × 2,480, which means full resolution of the individual images has been used (although it is possible that even larger resolution is available). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Great quality and EV.
    • Forgot to sign the above... ¢rassic! (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support quality of some of the individual images could be a little higher, but the illustrative value trumps that. Well done.--Svetovid (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as per above. Thinking before speaking is handy. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You're so much smarter than the rest of us Diliff. We really admire you. You've never made a single mistake in your whole life, and I'm sure it's only out of modesty that no major award has gone your way yet. The thing that most impresses me is how you always know exactly when no further commentary is needed, and refrain from such unnecessary verbal drivel. Deeply impressed. :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • You chose to ignore that it was a light-hearted joke. They help lift this process beyond mindless bureaucratic drivel. We're humans. We all make mistakes, but there should be nothing wrong with poking fun at them at times. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Don't worry. I took your comment for what it was: jest. ;) NauticaShades 22:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support very nice although I'd prefer the numbering to be visible at the size it's used in articles. Guest9999 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very encyclopedic. An excellent addition to Wikipedia. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Marvellous idea and well created - Peripitus (Talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Nicely done. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)