Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Armillaria sp Marriott.jpg

File:Armillaria sp Marriott.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 12:53:08

•  Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose Sorry, but the famous "wow" is simply missing here. The composition seems quite trivial. Would make a great VI though. -- JovanCormac 13:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Can it be id'ed more specifically than Armillaria sp. based on its visual appearance alone? I think it would be relevant for you to specify your source of identification on the file page. Is it your own id, did you use a book, which, if you asked at some website, provide a link, etc. --Slaunger (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • See: [1] also independently arrived at Armillaria at WP:Fungi too. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Please add it this important reference information to the file page (includign a specific link to the query at WP:FUNGi as well), as this is the obvious place to register such information. Nobody will be looking at this FPC page later if they wonder how the id was established. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Question What's that white, slightly tilted object (fence?) in the background. I find it mildly distracting. Otherwise a very nice photo.--Slaunger (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure what it is. File:Marriott Falls Vegetation.jpg is quite close to where the photo was taken. Probably a branch. I don't remember a fence. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I think it is a pity that it is licensed with GFDL 1.2 only, as it means it cannot be used in all Wikimedia projects, such as the German Wikipedia. I think, it lowers its value. --Slaunger (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, that is not quite true at the moment. In a recent vote [2] the decision was made to allow inclusion of 1.2-only from commons and/or to let commonists decide whether to keep allowing this license. Somewhat of a flip-flopping IMO, but we'll have to accept a majority vote. --Dschwen (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, I was not aware of that the de bit had flipped, thanks for telling me. Let me rephrase then into saying that I think it is a pity that it is licensed with only a GFDL license, as this makes its future useability in Wikimedia projects and elsewhere uncertain. The current trend at Commons talk:Licensing is that a GFDL only license for Commons users own work should be "strongly discouraged", and there is apparently a proposal under way to completely prohibit GFDL only licensing of new uploads of users own original works. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of such proposals. I do wish COM:FPC wasn't so politicised however. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm also reluctant to politicise in this way (as you call it). I would like to emphasize that license part considerations have very minor weight in my review here, but it does slightly affect the perceived value I have of the photo, which I think is a fair consideration. Especially, as long as it is not Commons policy to explicitly prohibit GFDL only licensing of original work from Commons users. --Slaunger (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Very nice photo, but adding the slightly distracting background feature with a discouraged license it does not make it over my bar. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like it. Julielangford (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose QI   • Richard • [®] • 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Please explain. That an image has good qulity is in my opinion not something that can be a reasonable reason to oppose. --Korall (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Richard is saying here that while it may be of sufficient quality, it lacks that something extra to make it to FP. --ianaré (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose not artistically or compositionally remarkable. As Richard. --Dschwen (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It ain't all about the "wow". Great quality compared to other fungi I've seen. ZooFari 07:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fungi-wow to me. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose white line in background is distracting --ianaré (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ianare -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral - would support without that distracting white bar. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative, featured

•  Info - Removed bar. --Noodle snacks (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Noodle snacks (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support as promised above. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Korall (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice shot ! --Ymaup (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)