Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Narzisse.jpg

Narcissus pseudonarcissus

Reason: High quality image of Narcissus pseudonarcissus.
Articles this image appears in: Narcissus pseudonarcissus, Narcissus (genus)
Creator: Martin Hirtreiter

Support as nominator Laitche (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Very nice, would be niucer if background weren't so blurry. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Elegant. The blurry background prevents it from distracting from the foreground subject. Dhatfield (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit Dhatfield (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - lighting is off, blown highlights, harsh edges. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-23 13:41Z
Support Capital photographer (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit for its softer edges on the flower, mostly. Neutral original.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit beautifully composed. Durova^Charge! 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm kinda with Brian, but I love the elegant composition. --Blechnic (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very pretty. But for Narcissus pseudonarcissus it does not show enough detail, specifically to illustrate the appearance of this species as opposed to others in the same genus. Nice to look at, high artistic value, low encyclopedic value.Dwayne Reed (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit. A very good, high quality image that perfectly illustrates the article.--Polymath618 (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dwayne Reed. The artsy composition seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia (but wonderful for just about anything else). Cacophony (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Highlights are slightly blown I think but in this case it doesn't actually look too bad. Great, simple composition. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good Picture. User:The Emperor561 | User talk:The Emperor561 12:46, 29 June EST
Oppose Its a good picture certainly, but I don't think it adds to the article at or all, nor does it have a good caption. Seeing as it fails 1/4th of the FP criteria, I vote no. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition but i find the detail on the flower itself lacking. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good photo, but when trying to demonstrate the article, there's no real need for 75% of the photo to be just empty grass. ¢rassic! (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It'll do great on Commons, but for Wikipedia, it's too wide a crop. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A fantastic image, both enc. and artistic. I don't know, there's something I really like about this image. The flower seems lonely. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has value and aesthetics. victorrocha (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Desperately needs a heavy crop (will support if one is made). Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Looks good, if you have an edit with the subject on the right, I would support a desktop POTD as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amckern (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]