Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Paperbark Maple Acer griseum Bark Closeup 3008px.jpg

Image:Paperbark Maple Acer griseum Bark Closeup 3008px.jpg, not featured

•  Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man -- Ram-Man 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Info Closeup of the peeling bark of the Paperbark Maple (Acer griseum)
•  Support From the department of leaves, bark, and branches, something not a flower. The contrast brings out the texture and adds depth to what would otherwise be a flat macro shot. This is a renomination. The old nomination failed to reach a quorum. -- Ram-Man 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charlessauer 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose The light is nice but it's the composition that spoils it for me. The central positioning of the raised bark splits the image into two disconnected halves. --MichaelMaggs 07:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs 07:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose As above - mainly composition. --Karelj 20:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Frankly, I prefer Image:Paperbark_Maple_Acer_griseum_Bark_3008px.jpg, which gives a sense of scale, shows more of the variety of effects the peeling bark causes on the trunk, and has better composition. Adam Cuerden 03:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative, not featured

•  Support I think this image, of the same tree (also by RamMan) is better in almost every way. Adam Cuerden 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, this one is lovely too. I prefer both actually, for their different purposes. The last time I nominated both at the same time (I was going to wait) the votes really got split, which is most annoying since both images could theoretically be featured at the same time (they are different enough). -- Ram-Man 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support better than the other one -LadyofHats 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry - I thought about this one for a long time, but the composition doesn't work for me. --MichaelMaggs 18:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)