Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dahlia Graceland.jpg

Dahlia Graceland

Original - Dahlia cultivar 'Graceland'. There are 30 species of Dahlia and 20,000 cultivars

Reason: Technicals etc are pretty good. Someone replaced it in the article for an inferior (cut off, low res, unsharp, unidentified) image from flickr the other day, but it was in the article for quite a period before hand.
Articles this image appears in: Dahlia
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good contrast, sharp. The water drop is a nice touch. Durova^Charge! 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply gorgeous! Terri G (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm not sure I can say much about this without heavy reliance on superlatives. I'll try to be simple and not too effusive: This is really excellent. Maedin\^talk 20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Quality shot but are the stalks/bg leaves meant to be such a bluish hue? If so my vote is a full support --Fir0002 07:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Sasata (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can't understand why you would photograph such a ragged specimen. Something's seriously been getting into this, most of the petals have been munched half-way to oblivion. Perhaps that's why someone swapped it in the taxobox, and the other one also seems a bit more of a 'generic' dahlia. Or am missing something that everyone else seems to get? --jjron (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I'd be quite surprised if something had munched on it, the photograph was taken on the day it opened (in fact its not quite completely open yet) and the condition was more or less pristine. It also seems extremely improbable that a bug would munch all the way around the edges but leave the rest completely intact, it'd be a waste of energy. Most of the caterpillars, for example, that I have seen tend to much in a straight line as they travel along. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the nature of the munched petals even in the middle that haven even quite opened yet, I suspect it was munched before it actually opened. Are you suggesting this is the 'natural' shape of these petals? Come on! --jjron (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think Jjron has a point. It looks like something started eating this when it was still a bud. Many of the inner (unopened) petals come to a point, while even some of their neighbors don't. I think something happened to this before it opened. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is something that happens in nature. I don't understand how it could be considered "negative". Perfection comes in greenhouses. It does not detract from the flower; it would be like considering a superb portrait of a person "flawed" because they have too many wrinkles. In any case, I almost see it as an opportunity for added encyclopaedic value, as mention can be made of the likely type of insect that made this its lunch. Maedin\^talk 19:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Compare to this. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aye, seems as if some insect had a munch when it was closed then. Pity I couldn't nom shortly after shooting (no id), there were others to choose from, but all wilted now. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Jjron, systematic bias against half eaten flowers must be maintained :) Mfield (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unfortunately agree with other opposers. Very well taken, but if we're going to feature a flower, it makes sense to show it in all it's glory without anything missing. Yes, this happens in nature but it would be like featuring an insect with half its legs missing. Enc, yes, but not the right kind of enc. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, its been done before. Long time ago though. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn for obvious reasons --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]