Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cucurbita moschata

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2012 at 13:08:34 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and good EV
Articles in which this image appears: Cucurbita moschata, Butternut squash, Winter squash, List of gourds and squashes
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
Creator: George Chernilevsky

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support EV is good. Image is a tad bit soft for my taste, and the colors are a bit dull. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the grass and leaves the butternuts are laying in demonstrative of the environment they are commonly grown in? Also, is that flower part of the squash plant? None of the articles address flowering. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin article address flowering. Need to add the picture there too? Jkadavoor (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't need to. There's already a picture of the flower attached to a vine. This flower doesn't look like it's attached to anything. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per me and Muhammad. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like an odd setting to photograph the fruit in. --Muhammad(talk) 06:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much of EV. Alborzagros (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The setting is actually quite appropriate here because the grass provides a size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's not the natural environment of butternuts, then it's deceptive in other ways. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can easily understand that these are harvested specimens; so I don't think it's deceptive in any ways. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can understand but I'm sure some will think these just pop out of the ground given that the flower also seems to come out of the earth --Muhammad(talk) 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Including the "cut" specimen? So this grows/pops out from a studio floor? Some criticisms are beyond my limits. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think the setting is deceptive. I wouldn't mind a neutral bg --Muhammad(talk) 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Muhammad - the setting of sitting on the ground is deceptive... gazhiley 16:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Muhammad Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 08:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ I think the problems mentioned above could be addressed by different placement in the articles or different captioning. Pine^✉ 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Weak support --Pine^✉ 18:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: A butternut in it's natural environment would be better. It is tasty, though. :) Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]