Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Araucaria Fossil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Araucaria Fossil

Reason

This was previously nominated about a month ago, receiving only one oppose. There were some issues with the nom (multiple images, all suffering minor problems) - the upshot was I offered to do an edit, but the nom was closed 'not promoted' before I got time to do so. This is my edited version with a number of the flaws in the originals corrected. Seems highly encyclopaedic showing both the outside of the cone and a cross-section, and to me is attractive and interesting, with now quite reasonable technical quality. Please vote support or oppose, but can we get a clear decision on this?

Proposed caption

Araucaria is a genus of evergreen coniferous trees in the family Araucariaceae. There are 19 species in the genus, with a highly disjunct distribution. The araucaria are living fossils, dating back to early in the Mesozoic age. This image shows the petrified cones of Araucaria sp. from Patagonia, Argentina dating from the Jurassic Period (approx. 210 mya).

Articles this image appears in

Araucaria
Fossil

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator jjron 05:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A bit blurry in full; I guess this could benefit from downsampling. Spikebrennan 14:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support either It looks fine to me.--Mbz1 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Despite the editing the quality is still too poor for FP IMO --Fir0002 02:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fir0002. If it was shot on film I'd suggest rescanning, as most of the really interesting detail seems to have been lost somewhere. --mikaul^talk 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your votes, Fir0002 and Mikaul. It is a digital shot and I still have the fossil, the only thing I do not have now is the Sun (foggy for almost a week with no end in sight). Maybe I still try to reshot it somehow.--Mbz1 23:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fir. de Bivort 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Quality is questionable, although image is highly encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, pictures of this type have to be of almost perfect quality to be featured, and this one isn't; the sharpness and lighting is too poor. --Aqwis 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)