Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Microforest

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2010 at 02:41:52 (UTC)

Reason: This photograph has a great overall exposure with different photographic elements being able to merge seamlessly into each other.
Articles in which this image appears: Macro Photography | Moss | Canon EF 100mm lens
FP category for this image: Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
Creator: AmericanXplorer13 (talk)

Support as nominator --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not really showing anything. It was quickly removed from fungus (where is the fungus? Is the large out-of-focus thing in the forground a piece of fungus?) and it doesn't seem to be adding anything in particular to moss (what is the species of moss this is illustrating?). The other usage is a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I realize that I can't just assume that since a photo has moss in it, it should automatically go under the fungi page. I realized after adding the photograph that I didn't know what species of fungi this was, and that it would be better off going under a Macro Photography page, seeing that it's a very good example of that photographic technique. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mosses and plants, not fungi. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a lousy photo of a mundane subject. I see no EV at all. And yes, mosses are not funguses.Shroomydan (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Limited practical use. upstate NYer 06:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no real focal point; it just seems like a load of potentially good elements blended into one photograph so it shows almost nothing at all. wacky wace 12:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be fair, this is a strangely beautiful photo. I just don't see a place for it in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shroomydan (talk • contribs) 06:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has interesting lighting and is somewhat pretty in an abstract manner, but the encyclopedic value is absolutely lacking and the image fails to properly show anything that may possibly of interest. It is not a good example of a macro photo either, since a macro photo is intended to portray small things, which are close to the camera, nicely (which this photo fails to do). Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal of Nomination After the criticism received for this image, I hereby withdraw my nomination. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted