Commons:Featured picture candidates/Maple leaves

Maple leaves - not featured

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4

Please state which (if any) you support, referring to them by number 1, 2, 3 or 4. I only intend for one of these to be featured but I am sure people will have different favourites (and least-favourites).

• all are by jurveston,  Nominate

by pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

•  Support all, favour 1 —pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose All of these four pictures are equally nice, but none of them is sharp in every part. I'd prefer just one sharp leaf instead of a disturbing multitude of them. Due to the fact that leaves are neither rare objects nor difficult to photograph an excellent quality would be needed to justify FP-status. MGo 11:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Leaves are not rare, true, but I have never seen any like this. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• First of all: These are really nice pictures. Second and third one are very artifically, but have not much encyclopedic value due to disturbing composition. I prefer first and fourth one. Due to the fact, that they are little bit blurry (unfavourable, because of the feathery structure) and the sticks in the background, i just vote  Neutral. The first one is my favourite. norro 12:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please remeber that "encyclopedic value" is not the best reason for inclusion or otherwise -- commons photos can be used in any number of projects other than wikipedia -- even something like fiction or a Wikibook cover. --Quasipalm 20:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

•  Oppose no favourite -- Lycaon 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Support 1 & 4 /  Oppose 2 & 3 & 1 (I noticed 1 has a strange white line in the right corner.) -Quasipalm 20:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Support - images 1 and 4 Gnangarra 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Urban 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose - tend to agree with MGo. In order of niceness, 1 is best, then 4, 2, 3 worst. It would also be nice to have more info on how the leaves were treated to make them like this. Of identification, they are probably Acer platanoides. - MPF 14:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)