Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Banksia rosserae

Banksia rosserae

Banksia rosserae flower spike

Banksia rosserae was only recently discovered and named, and until very recently no-one had ever seen it in flower, and no-one even knew when it flowered. The species occurs only in a few small populations in an unpopulated and arid area of Western Australia, and the exact locations are kept secret for conservation reasons. For these reasons, there were, until today, no photographs of the Banksia rosserae inflorescence anywhere on the web, under any licence at all; and there was virtually no prospect of a Wikimedian successfully seeking out such a photograph. User:Casliber uploaded image supplied under CC-by-2.5 from Mark Ross the successful photographer and has upload this image

Nominate and support. - Gnangarra 15:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot. Cab02 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i know its not a big pic but still, given the reasons above this is definately good enough for FP status--Childzy_talk^contribs 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snottygobble 23:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting picture... I have never seen anything like that before... Meets all the requirements... And it looks cool to me. Chan c e l lor Alt 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Way too small. This is a valuable addition to Wikipedia but in order to become an FP it should meet the guidelines. The photographer should be asked if a larger version is available. Redquark 00:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Redquark. Valuable and interesting though. I would support a larger version, preferably without the leaves hanging over the flower. --jjron 10:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Are you kidding? Waaaaay too small. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Just read the intro the guy wrote, I mean this is one of the only pictures that exsist, it is quite small but when balanced against the background of the photo I believe it is FP. Childzy_talk^contribs 15:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nnfolz's comment makes a nice response. The rarity of the image makes it valuable to the encyclopedia, but quality and resolution are major factors in a featured picture as well. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very valuable picture, but imo its not FP quality. Agree with everyone else about size.Nnfolz 16:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've missed something here I thought the value the picture brings to the article and by association wikipedia, is paramount. I thought the my ones bigger than yours is, isnt this pretty was the domain of Commons FP where they go out of the way to tell you that encyclopedic value is not a consideration. Gnangarra 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment The way I see it, is that those two things (encyclopedic value & picture quality) don't always go hand to hand. A picture can have high encyclopedic value (like this one) and really help the article, but not be of high quality (like the one on articles about a movie star for example), and vice-versa. IMO the backdrop that you gave about the picture is quite interesting and proves its encyclopedic value, i just dont like the picture thats all.Nnfolz 19:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jo e I 19:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose I really don't want to oppose such a rare and great photo. If it were a little bigger, but still under 1000px, I would be happy, but it is just too small. There are some great Banskia photos on Wikipedia, someone should nominate them for FP. --liquidGhoul 21:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support If what is said about the rarity is true, the image quality isn't bad enough to oppose--Abdominator 01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose agree with liquidGhoul. -Ravedave 03:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too low res. It's really great that wiki is fortunate enough to have this rare image, but the dimensions are just too small. One of those photos which are good but not quite FP --Fir0002 09:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Valuable to the article, but not so much that it can override my concerns about image size and quality for FP status. Images of this particular species may be rare at this moment, but probably won't be for long. -- moondigger 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In my opinion the information value wins it from the quality in this case. We've also had historical photos featured with crappy quality for their historical value. This has historical value even if it's only in biology/botany. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not historical. There will be other Banksia rosserae (though rare). -Ravedave 14:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per Moondiger. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]