Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wax apple

Wax Apple[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 08:22:30 (UTC)

Reason: High EV, no other high resolution/quality photos available in Wikipedia. This is the next contribution for my fruit series. Common names for the fruit include wax apple and (my favorite) love apple.
Articles in which this image appears: Syzygium samarangense, Myrtaceae and Syzygium
FP category for this image: Plants/Fruits
Creator: SMasters

Support as nominator --SMasters (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's upside-down, yea? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not upside down. The stem is at the top. SMasters (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Are you sure? The other pictures in the article seem very strongly to suggest the big bit is not the stem attachment... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not upside down, but I don't like how there two sources of light for each side of the right sample. Most importantly, it is too small and I would expect a larger resolution considering that they are both conjoined images of the same fruit. Jó Kritika (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The size is within the requirements for an FP. It's a small fruit. How big should it be? SMasters (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big enough to see a bit more detail. 4 cm not that small. Jó Kritika (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)reply[reply]

It's already bigger than File:Sugar apple with cross section.jpg. SMasters (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is actually the insufficient detail. Take a look at File:Rambutan white background alt.jpg. Even something that small has better detail than this. Maybe not bright enough to see the texture. Jó Kritika (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand what you are saying, but the rambutan has a lot of interesting features, and this just has a waxy surface, with the inside looking exactly like what you would see if you had the fruit in your hand. Not anything more than what is already shown. SMasters (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Yes, my monitor is adjusted just fine. But I find the left-hand (red colored) half to be too dark and there is too much white space in the cropping that unnecessarily crowds out detail that otherwise could appear with this size of image. Beyond that, the caption should specify that this is a fruit (easy correction). Anyway, I think the lighting here is simply too top-heavy and it needed a fill light down low to punch up the waist of the fruit. Sorry; that’s my reasoning. While it is an interesting fruit, I’m not seeing that his is excellent photography. Greg L (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added fruit to the caption. Not sure how else to crop it. SMasters (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the other images in the article appear to strongly suggest that this fruit is upside down. The colour is also a lot darker in this picture, for some reason. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: If a fruit or vegetable is no longer attached to a plant, how can there be a “right-side up”? Two of the three bananas in this picture are *sideways* by that measure. Would those orientations have created a problem in their own right if that picture had come here for consideration as an FP? Besides, it looks to me like the stem here in this fruit is at top, making it *right-side up* in the context of its natural orientation on the plant. Greg L (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly agree that it's upside down. Imagine a picture of an apple with the stem facing down. Why carefully balance this fruit upside down? It's bordering on decieving the viewer, as illustrated by the fact that most people here believe that the stem attaches at the upper part in this picture. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bless you, bless you for including the scale. I believe that all photos of this type should include them. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are right Adam. It is upside down. They packaged it the way I took the shot, and that confused me. Wonder why they do that! Maybe it looks better. Anyway, regretfully, I will have to withdraw this nomination and will have to shoot it again another time. :-( SMasters (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh… I thought that was a remnant of the stem at top. Indeed; orienting the fruit this way for the shot is deceiving and does a disservice to our readership. It is certainly not a fatal shortcoming for using this picture in an article on that fruit (though caption might also explain that the blossom remnant is at top and the stem is hidden at bottom). But, IMO, it is another strike against this image so far as it being considered for FP status. Greg L (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]