Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunflower sky backdrop.jpg

Sunflower on sky background

Reason: Aesthetic and plenty of EV
Articles this image appears in: Sunflower
Creator: Fir0002

Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Wasn't there a FP as the taxobox image before this one? --Muhammad(talk) 10:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was this one some time ago.
Support Good quality and isolation. The ones I saw grew so closely together I couldn't get just a single one --Muhammad(talk) 10:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You gotta break some ~~eggs~~ sunflowers to make an ~~omlette~~ FP ;-). --Dschwen 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hehe, I was in someone's farm though. Didn't want to get the villagers angry :) --Muhammad(talk) 15:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would they have chased you with pitchforks? --Dschwen 21:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Didn't see any pitchforks but jembes were accessible. --Muhammad(talk) 08:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Size ref? Spikebrennan (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Inner diameter (excluding petals) is approx 15cm --Fir0002 13:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - While a scale in the image would be ideal, I'd be happy with a mention of this in the image page or the image caption. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Entirely disagree. Unless the scale of the object is unusual or exceptional to the extent that it is necessary for the illustration (for example if this was an image of the a world record sunflower) then it is inappropriate to include a scale bar. It's all the more inappropriate where the scale is not precise but a mere approximation. At any rate, I've updated the caption --Fir0002 06:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice quality and excellent EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above. Ks0stm ^(T•C) 20:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sunflower sky backdrop.jpg --jjron (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]