Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pecans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pecans

Pecans
Pecans
Edit 1 to remove artifacts
Edit 1 to remove artifacts
Reason
I found this to be a very eye-catching, illustrative picture of pecans, both shelled and unshelled.
Articles this image appears in
Pecan, Hickory
Creator
Scott Bauer (USDA)
Nominator
ShadowHalo
  • Support — ShadowHalo 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support very strange way to illustrate an article, though I suppose it is effective! Jellocube27 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Just because easily-obtainable photographs should be superb. This is a little blurry (but still highly interesting). --Tewy 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak support edit 1. Same reason as above. --Tewy 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Even if it is blurred . But I have seen worst.Bewareofdog 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Original Aesthetics adds back the points lost through blurryness, and I don't see the massive artifacts. --antilivedT | C | G 06:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting picture. Terri G 12:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I'll go for that one. 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) (Contrib) 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful presentation of a common object! Royalbroil T : C 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose see below - Am I the only one that sees the massive artifacts in this picture, particularly in the nuts without shells? (Pay close attention to any lines that appear at a 45 degree angle) Sorry, I have to oppose this, but I would definitely support it if this problem were fixed. Such a unique and fun way of displaying nuts! tiZom(2¢) 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you are the only one... I cannot see any "massive" artifacts except some noise here and there. Care to be more specific? --antilivedT | C | G 05:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I see them too. They're not really massive artifacts but rather look similar to scanlines. Looks rather strange to be honest, but not something that is easy to fix. Downsampling would help and probably not lose much/any information. In fact it looks as though the image has been upsized already with poor sampling hence the artifacts. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, maybe not massive! But I can't justify supporting pictures with this problem (see crop) ...it's just not the quality I've come to expect at FPC. Again, I would happily support if we got a copy that addressed this issue. I really do think it's a fun, encyclopedic shot. tiZom(2¢) 18:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with above. Blurry in full size. Not unique, could be re-done with much better quality. --Janke | Talk 07:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Due to artifacts mainly. The pattern brings attention but doesn't really add to the understanding of the nut. A more casual presentation of shelled and unshelled pecans would probably be better IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Artifacts are really disturbing. Lycaon 08:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Pretty. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 16:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've applied a Gaussian blur and reduced the image to 2000x1309 (which should still be more than adequate resolution) to remove some of the pixelization/artifacts. ShadowHalo 19:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Support edit - Fantastic. Looks great! tiZom(2¢) 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original, oppose edit — The original is nice. It has some flaws, but it is overall pleasing and informative. The edit causes some loss of quality and strange tone/color change. ♠ SG →Talk 03:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose not very clean looking, also that isn't exactly a natural formation. A better photograph might have a whole pecan next to a cracked-open shell and the shelled nut sitting alongside it. drumguy8800 C T 08:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support edit 1. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No clear consensus yet on whether to go with the original or edit 1. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original I don't see what the improvement is of the edit. There is a barely visible cut in the center of the picture, roughly at a 167 degree angle, but the edit doesn't remove that either. ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose edit, decreasing resolution to a point where the artifacts aren't noticable anymore also discards good data from the picture. Weak oppose original not very enc as each individual nut is fairly small. I'd strongly prefer macroshots of closed, cut and opend nuts. --Dschwen 12:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original Aesthetically a very nice picture that shows pecans in an artistic yet informative way. I see no improvement in the edit -- it merely seems blurrier. I agree that close-up macro shots would add to the Pecan article, but I don't think that should count against this particular image. Despite some technical flaws, I think this image should be promoted. --Asiir 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Pecans.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)