Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chamomile@original size.jpg
Very good illustration of chamomile. Huge improvement (IMO) over the draw illustrations previously illustrating the article
- Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't like the amount of background as I found it distracting, so I played with it a little. Do you think this is any better? I will support
either versionversion #3. --Silversmith Hewwo 14:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with you the closer crop does look better. So I uploaded a cropped version at the camera's original size, so its a bit bigger. Have done a little editing, but you may want to do more. --Fir0002 12:36, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Support both versions, prefer cropped version. Great stuff. Junes 07:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Blown-out highlights in petals (in particular in the larger flower) contribute to an overall lack of detail. Alight 20:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Well the petals don't actually have any detail in them, they're just white. --Fir0002 12:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Support the third version. Sango123 16:11, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - but only version 3 InTheFullnessOfTime 10:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose- Greatly dislike it, is just an ordinary picture Electricmoose- Electrifying 18:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This wouldn't be a biased opinion would it now? --Fir0002 10:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Rather cynical comment Fir A curate's egg 19:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This wouldn't be a biased opinion would it now? --Fir0002 10:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support all, especially the third picture -- like it - Chris 73 Talk 07:46, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support No. 3 — Good work — Oska 05:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support number 3 --Spangineer (háblame) 13:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Chamomile@original size.jpg 8 / 2 --Spangineer (háblame) 13:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
