Ambersweet oranges
The original version of this image was low-res and had some weird artifacts. So, I cleaned up the source version and uploaded over it. Currently featured at orange (fruit) and Vitamin C. - BRIAN0918 11:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 11:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It looks a little too much like stock-art to me. What makes this striking enough to be featured? I mean, the lighting is fine, the arrangement is unoffensive, but beyond that... ? --Fastfission 14:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The detail, I suppose. See Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs for other examples which aren't necessarily striking but are high in detail and illustrate articles well. -- BRIAN0918 14:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice pic, but not striking enough for Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 18:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- "Striking" is just one of the possible criteria. How can a picture of an orange ever be considered "striking"? The orange isnt gonna shoot ninja stars at you and do roundhouse kicks. What does Image:Plums.jpg have that this is lacking? -- BRIAN0918 18:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose have to agree, not striking, since you asked. It's a bowl of oranges, the plum pic is 1. on the tree still giving it a more lifelike/less posed feel 2. vibrant in multiple colors. 3 character is added by the water droplets. I do think that there exists a striking pic of oranges somewhere in this world, but this is not it. Cavebear42 19:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- "Striking" is just one of the possible criteria. How can a picture of an orange ever be considered "striking"? The orange isnt gonna shoot ninja stars at you and do roundhouse kicks. What does Image:Plums.jpg have that this is lacking? -- BRIAN0918 18:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I would say the droplets give it a visual quality. Demi T/C 19:54, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
- That's strange, the pic has no droplets on it! - Adrian Pingstone 20:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm strongly biased to very high-resolution images like this one, and I don't see any technical flaws, and it's a good illustration for the orange (fruit) article, but the arrangement is boring - the four split halves are just too many - and the more interesting details aren't at all visible except at full resolution. I think OrangeBloss wb.jpg is a better composition and Blood oranges.jpg has more interesting subject matter than this, though neither of those are up to featured quality. In Vitamin C, an image with more than just one kind of citrus fruit would be more appropriate. This falls into the grey area where I'd support it if it were taken by a Wikipedian, but since it's from an outside source, it's not quite good enough. —Korath (Talk) 22:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Odd arrangement. Junes 20:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I love the detail, but it just doesn't meet featured pic criteria. Enochlau 01:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I like the detail and the colours. Halibutt 08:16, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - Bevo 19:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support BrokenSegue 21:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted . +4/-6. --brian0918™ 21:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)