Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Stinkhorn Springbrook.jpg

Image:Stinkhorn Springbrook.jpg, featured

•  Info created and uploaded by WikiWookie - nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Info Species name is Aseroë rubra. Other good images of this include Image:Stinkhorn_Auckland_2005-10-14.jpg, the unfortunately too small Image:Aseroe_rubra_Bomaderry_email.jpg, and the Lovecraftian horror of Image:Aseroe_rubra.jpg. This one has been washed by rain, revealing the unnderlying structure of the stinkhorn body.
•  Support --Adam Cuerden 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Charlessauer 07:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - nice picture...--Sabri76 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I didn't fancy aliens have landed in NZ --B.navez 03:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Strange. --Calibas 05:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Unusual, but good and valuable. Freedom to share 20:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Good composition, valuable illustration of interesting subject. Must have been a smelly experience from reading the species article on en. A pity that the wood chops are not natural ones. I suggest to Geocode it. Adds value. -- Slaunger 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info Location info added as suggested. --WikiWookie 11:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you, I already zoomed in to see where it was. Nice. -- Slaunger 12:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Support All of the above, plus gooey and disgusting. Good job! Durova 22:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Wlodzimierz 05:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 09:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 02:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 07:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm sure I'm missing something here, but according to the Wikipedia article, this is a fairly common fungus, so a resulting image should be extra special. The composition here is not exceptional (though not bad). The angle is too wide, resulting in the typical wide-angle distorted perspective that does not add to the image. The top-left fungus is not in clear focus. It may look unusual to commons reviewers, but I expect more. -- Ram-Man 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Having the secondary subject smaller and slightly out of focus stops it distracting from the main subject - otherwise they compete for attention. While it may be a fairly common fungus, good examples do seem to be rare. The wood chips are not natural but I like the concept of something natural making use of material man uses to try to prevent growth. --WikiWookie 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Good examples are rare for many different subjects, but that is no reason for it to be a featured picture. A large number of my own subjects fall in that category, but they still do not easily become featured pictures. This image has the flaws I've listed, yet it is wildly popular. I think perhaps the subject is just so interesting to people that it overrides any other objections. -- Ram-Man 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not quite sure you understand what "fairly common fungus" means - fungi, even the most common, are only visible above ground for a few weeks out of a year, and are only at the mature stage of development for a week or two - much less in some cases, like inkcaps - before they begin to degrade. Adam Cuerden 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Just referencing here. In any case it isn't rare or especially difficult enough to compensate for its weaknesses. That's my main point. An underwater Antarctica shot is rare and difficult. -- Ram-Man 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I've gone through about most of Category:Fungi and its subcats today. I've found... exactly one other which MIGHT work as FPC, if people are willing to ignore that it's very slightly cropped. So, you know, "extra-special" doesn't seem the right criterion, at least until we get some more photographers willing to go mushrooming. Then we can consider Featured picture removal for any that no longer make the new bar, but, you know, FP serves to appreciate our photographers and gets more of similar categories - look at insects and flowers - so fungi is something we should be actively looking to promote just now. Adam Cuerden 03:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
            • The guidelines do not list appreciation of photographers as a guideline, but it is a nice side effect. Also, no where in the guidelines does it imply that a lack of a certain subject is reason to treat an image with less technical strictness (although rareness can increase value). There could be no pictures or dozens of fungi and it wouldn't change my vote. It is commonly understood that FPs are intended to be the best-of-the-best. It's also much harder to remove a borderline FP than you imply. -- Ram-Man 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)