Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tree Stump
- Reason
- good quality image, adds to the two articles due to its clarity and it being freshly cut. Also reasonably interesting composition
- Articles in which this image appears
- Dendrochronology, Tree stump
- Creator
- Childzy ¤ Talk 16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I am not an expert but I think the picture's EV for dendrochronology is fairly limited. Firstly, I doubt that dendrochronologists would be interested in studying such a young tree. Secondly, even if they were interested, they probably wouldn't cut the entire tree down, since using a drill to extract a sample (as illustrated in the article) is probably a much easier method and means that samples don't need to be studied in situ. The section of the article that this picture is in talks about 'taking samples' from a variety of sites and discusses the applications of dendrochronology to historical/archaeological research... making this picture of a single, young, fully-felled tree particularly inappropriate. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- i can see the issue, its just that the article for tree rings directs to Dendrochronology, the image is intended to show a clearer view of tree rings. I've removed it now, it does has more value in tree stump i guess anyway--Childzy ¤ Talk 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The EV in dendrochronology could have been improved by polishing the stump so that the rings were visible more clearly. More generally I feel that the angle to the stump is too acute, the image is underexposed and the sharpness is borderline. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Noodle snacks- additionally, I'm not really seeing why the image has to be so dark. J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Noodlesnacks and J Milburn. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)