Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cactus flower unidentified.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2009 at 02:55:15
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is an exercice in elements of photography: color, texture, rythm, contour. It is not presented as an identifiable flower. If you think it is important, help yourself in IDing it, otherwise, it is a graphic object. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Sorry too spoil your party Tomás, but exercise or not, organisms need id's to be valuable for Wikimedia projects. I gave it a start further down, now it's up to the specialists. These things are doable. If you can't do it yourself (and nobody is a specialist in all groups!), then contact someone through the internet: it only takes a bit of research to find a specialist, but the result will often be satisfactorily and reliable. It is thus, IMO, always a good idea to first identify (or have identified) your plant/critter before submitting it for any of the assessment schemes (FP, QI or VI) (I personally do not even upload until I know the id!). Lycaon (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Info Species identification, valuable as it is, is not an FP criteria, nor should it be. Identification is part of QI criteria, but QI was setup for a different reason than FP. However well meaning, please do not conflate the two, it muddies and devalues the function of each award. Argue for identification when they are nominated for QI status. Please do not re-inforce the confused view of many people who think that FPs are a superset of QIs, or that QI is a booby prize for FP failures. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment Well, in general terms, considering the fact that the image may be used for encyclopedic purposes I agree with you. And yes, id is desired considering that particular platform. I admit my ignorance in botanical knowledge and my incometence in being able to id the species. However, I really did take this photo strictly from the photographic/aesthetic perpective (which in turn it may have its faults). I am a sloppy cactus collector and I just pick them for their looks. My project No. 324-VI-c/967 calls for me to start identifying my collection, meanwhile, this is what I have, a picture of a cactus flower that opens up for one day a year. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'm hoping it will be identified (mainly so I can buy myself one) but in the meantime, it's a great picture. I love it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice, but should be identified for use in other projects --Muhammad (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'll reserve my vote until the species is known (that really is important for the usability of this kind of images!!). I'm not a cacti specialist but I think it is an Echinopsis sp. Someone more knowledgeable should take it from here. Lycaon (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As long as unidentified. —kallerna™ 11:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Beautiful photograph Fg2 (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Amazing photo. How did you manage to get such a colors for the flower? --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Thanks Tiago, but nature managed to get those colors. What I did to enhance the visual aspect was to put a black background in order to isolate the petals and colors, in effect "forcing" the contour and contrast. I moved the cactus (in a pot) to the shade in order to avoid harsh direct sunlight. The angle was difficult because of the way the flower sprouted from the cactus and it affected the DOF... but anyway, I think the overall effect is acceptable. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Really very nice image, but this is encyclopedia and image without good description ... ? --Karel (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Info This is wikimedia commons, not wikipedia, this is NOT an encylopedia :-). Also see above, identification is not an FP criteria, please judge it by FP criteria. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Cactus_flower_unidentified.jpg&oldid=21747425"