Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Litchis.jpg
- Reason
- Good quality and EV
- Articles this image appears in
LycheeRambutan, Nephelium- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 01:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment you have dust spots top left. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Cloned out --Muhammad(talk) 02:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Question Very vibrant & excellent level of detail; I would support, but wanted to ask: this image has been removed from Lychee by an editor who said it is actually a related species, the Rambutan. I'm not sufficently familiar to identify either, but wondered if it might go in that article instead? --☇Kateshortforbob talk☄ 15:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly looks like Rambutan. I knew what the fruit was called in Swahili, shoki shoki so searched for its translation and got litchi. See here, here and [1]. --Muhammad(talk) 16:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Any suggestions anybody? I'm confused now --Muhammad(talk) 16:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in the States at least, we've heard of Lychee, but not Rambutan. So maybe Rambutan is sometimes called Lychee in English countries. That's my guess :) Kaldari (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, I've heard of, and eaten both. I don't know which is which very well though. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- These are Rambutans. The pictures of its internal structures, the size and description all match Rambutan, so have added it to the article, where it replaced much lower quality images. Will put it up for renaming after this nom is closed.--Muhammad(talk) 05:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, I've heard of, and eaten both. I don't know which is which very well though. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in the States at least, we've heard of Lychee, but not Rambutan. So maybe Rambutan is sometimes called Lychee in English countries. That's my guess :) Kaldari (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't mean to pry here. But that picture lasted a mere eight minutes in its respective article. Looks like Muhammad already had his eyes on the prize here. I've said it before, and I'm saying it again, rushing nominations like this does not benefit the project. Give your pictures some time after adding them. FP is not the main goal, illustrating an encyclopedia is! --Dschwen 18:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, this was not put up for the prize. Its not part of the 26 flooded noms. I added the image to the article assuming the the translation was correct. However, now that that has been corrected, I am pretty sure it will remain in the other articles. --Muhammad(talk) 23:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment because of the much higher resolution and differing composition the previous infobox image at Rambutan (File:Rambutan Nephelium lappaceum Whaldener Endo.jpg), showed the individual fruit in much greater detail (I'd say the central fruit might be made up of more pixels than this entire image) even if the focus/sharpness is not as good. Guest9999 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Resolution isn't everything and what use is a ridiculously high res image to a reader if it is not focused well? Compositionwise, this is superior because unlike that one, it shows how they are in a group. --Muhammad(talk) 07:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- And compositionwise it is worse, because it does not show a single fruit. Uhm? --Dschwen 09:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- No single image can show everything. A whole body shot of an animal will show some features not seen in a portrait. Similar case here. Nonetheless, I have added a single fruit image to the article. --Muhammad(talk) 12:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say the composition was better or worse, I said it was different. Because of the increased resolution it is possible to see greater detail of the <non-technical terms> sticky-outy things and the segmentation of the fruit which they come from </non-technical terms>. My only point was that it is not inconceivable that someone could find that valuable. Both photos were taken with ~10 MP cameras, so it would seem to be a conscious decision that this one is less than a quarter of the size of the one it replaced. However seeing as File:Rambutan white background.jpg has been added to the infobox I see this whole issue as moot. Guest9999 (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Does that equal a support :p --Muhammad(talk) 14:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say the composition was better or worse, I said it was different. Because of the increased resolution it is possible to see greater detail of the <non-technical terms> sticky-outy things and the segmentation of the fruit which they come from </non-technical terms>. My only point was that it is not inconceivable that someone could find that valuable. Both photos were taken with ~10 MP cameras, so it would seem to be a conscious decision that this one is less than a quarter of the size of the one it replaced. However seeing as File:Rambutan white background.jpg has been added to the infobox I see this whole issue as moot. Guest9999 (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- No single image can show everything. A whole body shot of an animal will show some features not seen in a portrait. Similar case here. Nonetheless, I have added a single fruit image to the article. --Muhammad(talk) 12:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- And compositionwise it is worse, because it does not show a single fruit. Uhm? --Dschwen 09:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Resolution isn't everything and what use is a ridiculously high res image to a reader if it is not focused well? Compositionwise, this is superior because unlike that one, it shows how they are in a group. --Muhammad(talk) 07:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Rambutan, that should be sufficiently exotic to provide an example of an FP really improving the illustration of an article. Nope, plenty of high quality high resolution and encyclopedic images already in there. --Dschwen 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Such as? --Muhammad(talk) 16:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted No quorum. --upstateNYer 05:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
