Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Potato with sprouts.jpg

Potato with sprouts.jpg

Reason

Remarkable DOF, recommended at PPR.

Articles this image appears in

Potato

Creator

ZooFari

• Support as nominator --
  ZooFari 18:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I guess the topic is dangerous. Even if all technical details are optimal the search for the optimal photograph can have many approaches in this case. For example I could wish in this case for having an individual with the three sprouts in three different stages: incipient, small (like the three here) and more developed (with an actual stalk and leaves). Also I could wish for having a sectioned individual next to it in addition. The availability of potatoes to everyone make those wishes not so unreal. About the picture itself, I think the light is too bright on the potato (mostly to the left). But this probably can be solved doing some little tweaks.  franklin  19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for good general representation of a potato... that can see. ❄
  NYer ❄ 23:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I thought when Fir (and a few others) where uploading shots like these it was generally agreed that the 'type' of the fruit/vegetable should be identified. --jjron (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, a different previously failed potato image FP nom and it's nom. --jjron (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it is a high
      ZooFari 16:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Comment. I think this photo needs a rather dramatic crop. It's OK to crop through the shadow, BTW, since we're not a stock photography site, i.e. we don't care about adding this potato onto white stationary and business cards :) Kaldari (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Personally I'd ask for a cross section and focus stacking given that it isn't hard to repeat.
  talk) 23:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It's focus stacked.
  ZooFari 02:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• My mistake.
  talk) 04:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have provided an alternative showing a sliced version on the left, as suggested by NYer and NS. I have updated the cultivar according to the packaging and used a few more frames on the right version during focus stacking.
  ZooFari 22:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Alt 1 More than enough detail for FP. ❄
  NYer ❄ 05:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Alt 1 Jujutacular ^T · C 20:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 1. As long as no scale is added. Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 1 Only.
  talk) 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Is the Alt 1 going to be added to the article, or to replace the Original in it? Some little care should be taken. One thing is the nomination of pictures recently added to articles and another is images that are not even in use.  franklin  05:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Both images are now in their designated article. --
  ZooFari 05:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks. As I said once it makes me worried that the boundary of point 5.1 of FP criteria can be pushed too much. (all the previous supports were given when this point was being violated) The danger is still there. For example, the alt is now (woops, this now is the now of a past time. it was now when I was writing.) only used in
  Russet Burbank potato are of a level that doesn't affect being in the same classification.  franklin  05:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Just so you know, if an edit or alternate is promoted, it will replace the original nominee in an article, no matter what.
  NYer 07:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

All I know is that it's a russet potato as noted on the packaging. The russet article redirects to Russet Burbank which IMO is misguided. There are several types of russets forming even more category trees (thanks to these brilliant people called botanists) but some are just hybrids belonging to the upper class potatoes. --

ZooFari 17:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

And the alt is used in potato as well, illustrating the low-starch russet. The original is only used in potato illustrating the sprouts in the description section. --

ZooFari 17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

No No No. We don't junk up articles with every variation of a photograph just so they all technically meet the featured picture criteria. Only a single photograph from a nomination needs to be in the article to qualify all the alts. Whichever photo wins should be used in the article(s). Remember, our primary concern here is improving articles, not winning contests. Having two or more essentially identical photos in the same article is ridiculous. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended for a winning championship. I just find alts difficult to arrange which is why I prefer a single image for a nomination. Of course, I could have changed my mind and use the original to go by the FPC process with this given advice , but I could see you already fixed it yourself. --

ZooFari 04:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Needs a scale. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The original is about 10 cm (4 inch) and the alt is about 4 1/2 inches (11.5 cm) including the sprout at the end. Typically normal. Since I don't know the measurements precisely, I decided not to embed a scale and play guessing games; instead I have posted it on the file page. Scales suit macros better IMO anyways. --
  ZooFari 01:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]