Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Creedite 3.jpg

Creedite[edit]

Reason: To fix systemic bias against orange minerals. Good quality thanks to a deep focus stack.
Articles this image appears in: Creedite
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. How dare they discriminate against orange minerals? ;) Durova²⁹⁹ 19:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a little too much shadowing on the left but high encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question The lighting isn't ideal here. Any alternates? Would a reshoot be difficult to arrange? Makeemlighter (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an alt. Can reshoot but it isn't mine so it'd be on the months time-scale. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Good EV and quality, just not ideal lighting. I like the alternate, but the original probably has better EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Wonderful alternative, but is it for voting; is it not a criterion for FPs that the whole subject matter is visible? 79.71.124.92 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a criterion. It is often asked for with animals and so on since there is usually more value if the entire creature is shown. It shouldn't matter here because the illustration is for a type of mineral, and they come in all shapes and sizes. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool, thanks. I won't vote; I was curious. 79.71.124.92 (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I'll go ahead and support. It's a little darkish, but I think it should pass. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 193 FCs served} 08:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please nominate preference for the alt or the original. The alt is growing on me at the moment personally. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Creedite 3.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]