Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Apple Sundown and Cross Section

Apple Sundowner and Cross Section

Original - This is an apple cross section of a 'Sundowner' apple cultivar.

Edit - Add margins to lower bottom of image.

Reason: It is a very good, quality image.
Articles in which this image appears: Apple
Creator: Fir0002

Support as nominator --December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at ≈ 01:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is too little space bellow the apples compare to the one from above. franklin 05:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the featured picture Apricot and cross section.jpg has Apricots close to each other, and, that picture is on the Main Page right now. They are both similer. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at ≈ 05:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The apricots in the main page are pretty close, but the gap between them is properly centered in the picture which makes it look fine. Here, on the other hand, due to the vertical placement of the apples in the frame, it looks like the sectioned one is going to fall out of the picture (not a desired feature in this case). Also it can be repaired, or at least they did something similar in Pinnacles National Monument's nomination when added more sky. franklin 06:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs scale and identification of the type of apple. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I agree with the need for type identification,~~ but unless the apple type is uniquely large or small, I disagree with the need for a scale. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just saw comment below and added cultivar to caption. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added edit. Unfortunately I don't know the size but support anyways. --Zoo Fari 00:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also cultivar is mentioned in the article. --Zoo Fari 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak support Edit I it find hard to support this kind of pictures, but I think it is fair. franklin 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit only. Looks good. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - For Edit 1 only. Not very special. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FWIW I think the variety ('cultivar') may be misidentified here. I suspect it's a sundowner, not a sundown (see here for example.) Coming from the same area of the world as Fir, can't say I can ever remember seeing a variety identified as sundown. --jjron (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a brand name? franklin 07:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the cultivar name for a Sundowner should be Cripps red [1] franklin 07:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW (ha! I learned this acronym) here is a huge list of apple varieties [2] franklin 07:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of them is Sundown [3] franklin 07:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you check my original link, it appears your final link is calling the Sundowner a Sundown - the other information seems to match, except for the harvest period, but presumably your link is an American site vs my Australian site which would explain that, and they are an Australian apple so would probably go with that for the name. Maybe the shop Fir bought if from had it labelled as a Sundown, but as I say I can't remember seeing them as such anywhere, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. My first linked site says "Cripps Red apples of an appropriate quality may be sold using the trademarked brand name Sundowner^TM", so maybe it would be more accurate to label it a Cripps Red anyway. --jjron (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]