Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Holy Basil

Flower of the Holy Basil

Original

Edit 2 Spiderwebs removed

Reason: No other such detailed picture of the flower available on wikipedia.
Proposed caption: Ocimum tenuifolium (known as Holy basil in English, and Tulasi in Sanskrit), is a well known aromatic plant in the family Lamiaceae. Apart from its culinary uses, for which it is known across the world, it is also used as a medicinal plant, and has an important role within many traditions of Hinduism, wherein devotees perform worship involving Tulasi plants or leaves
Articles this image appears in: Ocimum tenuiflorum
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice flower and a great picture.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I find the spiderweb distracting and I think it could safely be photoshopped out without affecting the encyclopedic nature (except perhaps positively) of the shot. Good composition though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The spiderweb does not appear to have been removed well. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edit 2 fixed it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Very hash and distracting flash lighting. Composition really is meh at best; the crop is very tight, and given the size of the flowers relative to the entire frame, I want to see the entire plant, not just this part. thegreen J Are you green? 21:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I take the entire plant, the flower itself will not be in much detail. The plant is after all, about a meter tall. I think the crop is fine. The whole of the flower is perfectly showing. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 uploaded

Support edit 1 per Mbz1 H92110 (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit 1. The web hasn't been edited out well, and there's no reason to do so. I'd oppose original too, due to harsh lighting. Sorry. —Pengo 11:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both: Edit 1 is very poorly retouched, both are very poorly lit. As ever, fine encyclopedic photographs of above-average quality, just not FP quality due to issues already mentioned above. Have you ever considered using bounce flash? This and other hot tips are always available at WP:PPR.. --mikaul^talk 15:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2 uploaded

Thank you H92110 for the edit but I dont think all the spiderwebs were removed. I have uploaded edit 2 and replaced edit 1. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 I disagree with Pengo - the lighting doesn't appear to bother me, it helps show the detail. I also disagree with thegreen. The crop is just fine shows the detail. If you need to see the entire plant, look up the entire plant. Good picture. job —Preceding comment was added at 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 per all above.--Here T oHelp 20:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bothSorry. While "No other such detailed picture of the flower available on wikipedia" is a reason that this is a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia (it undoubtedly is, I agree), it alone is not reason enough for this picture to be FP. Technically, the biggest problem I have with this picture is that a large portion of the subject is overexposed; the affected flowers contain no detail. Yes, there are good examples of the flower at the top, but the overall quality of the picture is compromised b/c of the blown highlights in the lower half. Moreover, the picture is compositionally weak: too tight in the upper right and bottom left corners, with awkward empty space in the other two corners. Finally, a minor issue, but is the entire stalk considered one flower, or is each small flower on the stalk in the picture considered an individual flower? If the latter is the case, zooming in on one flower, or maybe a macro, would've been the better choice IMO. --Malachirality (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your informative comments. It is indeed true that some parts are blown out. However, I disagree with you about the crop. I think the picture gives some kind of a feeling, the way it is with the two corners tight and the other two blank. The entire stalk contains many flowers, inflorescence. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thegreenj and Malachirality --Wutschwlllm (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting is too harsh. Chris.B | talk 18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Composition is interesting and very good (just a slight quibble with the leaves cut at the bottom); the diagonal framing is something different and eyecatching. Good details in the flowers despite the brightness; I'd like to see what you could do with a camera where you had more control of the flash. --jjron 08:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]