Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Illustration Cichorium intybus

Botanical Illustration of Cichorium intybus[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2010 at 02:36:19 (UTC)

Reason: The quality is just like the EV - High. Compare with the uncleaned version. I fixed the angle from the last version seen here.
Articles in which this image appears: Chicory
FP category for this image: Plants/Flowers
Creator: Professor Dr. Otto Wilhelm Thomé, cleaned by Aroche

Support as nominator --I'ḏ ♥One 02:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The big thing is Cichorium intybus is blue... the colors appear to be wrong, plus I think it was too aggressive in the whiting of the background from the original, also colors seem off here too considering the flower is blue in real life. — raeky T 02:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It says in the first paragraph that chicory can be lavender or white as well. This is probably what the image looked like before the book it came from oxidized, it, too, was white once before and it's just been digitally restored, and we both know the original wouldn't stand a chance here. The original is 125 years old. --I'ḏ♥One 02:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - White's very rare, I'm betting that the blue pigment in the original faded... — raeky T 03:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh, looks pretty much like it was supposed to be white to me. Why would the blue have faded and not all the green? And why just specifically on those petals? Wouldn't it be more likely that if any blue had been there it would have smugged? None of your arguments so far have been logical. --I'ḏ♥One 03:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pigments fade due to what they was made of, so the green could of been far more lightfast then the blue. It's possible it was intended to be white, but white is hardly representative of the average Chicory flower and it's MORE LIKELY it was originally blue and the blue pigment faded. — raeky T 03:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You're grasping at straws and making claims and assumptions with no evidence to back them up except one detail that has nothing to do with the illustration in question. Dominant and recessive genes determine the color of petals, that has nothing to do with Thome's apparent choice to use white or the quality of the image no matter how much you wish it did or that it actually was blue. --I'ḏ ♥One 04:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I don't know, maybe it would look prettier if they were blue, though I think they still look nice simply in white, matching the white behind it, complemented by the greens and greenish-yellows. The purpose of the image is more for showcasing the specimen than for purely beauty, though I do think Thome tried to add an aesthetic quality to these. --I'ḏ ♥One 07:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, but the atypical colouration does lower the EV, especially as the image is pretty much just tacked onto the bottom of the article- it doesn't seem to be illustrating anything in particular, really. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Chicory is a very common roadside weed where I live, but I think I'd be hard pressed to identify it from this picture. The flowers nearly always have some blue, with the most common color a distinctive azure, and with white a rare exception. If the blue has faded then colors should be restored, but until then it's not FP material IMO.--RDBury (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found another scan, [1], of the same plate. In this version the blue is quite noticeable despite the age, though there is severe yellowing of the paper. Google books has scans of the first three volumes of this work but I could not find the fourth volume where this particular image is located.--RDBury (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to colouration issues- RDBury's research is pretty damning, I would say. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely convinced, with that image I could see blue or shaded white, and the apparent dead pods and yellow stems and leaves on RDB's version also possibly hint that that version could possibly be wrong or improperly scanned as well, and on top of aged paper, but we can just WP:SNOW ball scrub this whole thing. On the bright side though RDB's find could provide Wikipedia with a lot more free scientific illustrations! ..If we can sort of the ones with closer color accuracy and fix them up. --I'ḏ ♥One 19:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]