Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ranunculus glacialis (habitus).jpg

Image:Ranunculus glacialis (habitus).jpg, not featured

•  InfoRanunculus glacialis L. (1753), Glacier crowfoot at the Swiss/Italian border at the Grand Saint Bernard Pass. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lycaon (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Looking good. --Aktron (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition - not cropped close enough considering how far out of focus the background is. I mean if its a flower portrait then they should be cropped tighter, and if it's putting the flowers in habitat then more of the background should be sharp. Or crop about 1/5 from top and right. Mfield (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like it, but there are too much distractions in the background, which isn't particularly interesting.Perhaps you can crop it and still keep it above 1600x1200. -- Silfiriel (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment The background is actually part of the picture. This is a scientific illustration of an in situ specimen, that grows from 2400 m up to 4000 m altitude, often in the vicinity of glaciers (here a few meters from a melting snow field). 2600 m (where the picture was taken) is above the tree line, so a rocky background is very typical for this species. Cropping and/or resampling are non-issues for me: Commons policy is to always try to post the largest version available. This picture is very valuable uncropped (it is in situ), but as per the license, if someone wants to make a derivative for some specific purpose, he/she is very welcome. Lycaon (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment if that's the case, that it's intended an in situ shot, then more DOF would have been appropriate though. Mfield (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Hi, perfect like this. --B.navez (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support background is fine (shows habitat w/o being distracting), flowers show lots of detail Ianare (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Mfield. Background is fine to show habitat but then it should be throughout sharp --Simonizer (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I can't help but discern a yellowish tint. –Dilaudid 15:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Common good quality image, no reason for nomination into FP IHMO. --Karelj (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow.--Sensl (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)