Reason

Very clear image, with good colors, and good encyclopediac content.

Articles this image appears in

Monocotyledon, Agriculture in Canada

Creator

Bluemoose

• Support as nominator --Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Nice picture but it seems cluttered and not really eye-catching. Not sure if that's enough for an oppose. Fleagle 05:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose No attempt at all to diffuse background, busy and not very rich colour Capital photographer (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and Comment A noisy background in a wheat field? What will they do next, edit the soil out of the farm? Cluttered? Do we want Wikipedia readers to see sterile single fronds of wheat blowing in the wind under an azure sky? What the heck is it about this, edit nature so it looks like it's in a photo studio with a fake background, and photoshop enhanced? What is encyclopedic about artifice? Please, Bluemoose, don't destroy this picture by making it look like a single sterile piece of wheat shot in a photo studio. Velvet Elvises turn over in their graves! And, please, don't change the color to something it's not, because then no one will ever get to see the color of real wheat in the sun. --Blechnic (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support The picture is interesting, eye catching and the focus is good. Muhammad(talk) 09:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Capital photographer, - DOF is too big. Overall nothing special. —αἰτίας •discussion• 10:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Subject is not really sharp and detailed, and I think it's because of jpeg compression. Camera is a compact, so the scope for remedy is very limited. DOF is not the major problem per se, but a shallower DOF could have helped the compression maintain the relevant details. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not based on photographic criteria but the fundamental encyclopedic ones. It adds nothing useful to the two articles it's listed in. No flowers so the presence in Monocotyledon is not greatly illustrative and nothing about the image says "Canada" - Peripitus (Talk) 11:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, there are no flowers because it's gone to fruit. I think that's what a grain is. Although there is nothing that says Canada strikingly, it could be "Eastern Washington," "Ukraine," wherever wheat--good point. Why isn't it in the wheat article? --Blechnic (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Flower structure, internals of the seed and leaf structure are all important identifiers of Monocots - none of this are well displayed. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes, because it's gone to fruit. The fruit of monocots are distinctive important identifiers also, and the fruits are what contain the seeds, not the flowers. The fruit of grasses are a snapshot of their evolutionary impact on the ecosystems they dominate--Wikipedia might be lame in the grass department, I don't know, but the Miocene isn't. Stick your finger down the top of a banana some day--then ask, monocot, dicot/eudicot, or basal angiosperm? The seeds are technically part of the fruit, you know. This image isn't in the article illustrating the parts of a grass. Grasses are a major component of the monocots, and showing them in their form as they grow in agriculture is a legitimate and important way, of many, to illustrate them. This picture won't replace the image of a diagram of a grass or vice versa. It won't replace the image of a cut fruit, and the image of a dissected grass floret won't replace the image of wheat growing in a field. They're different images. --Blechnic (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The picture is rather fuzzy. Fix the fuziness and I'd support.I'd like to comment that foreground, middleground, and background are clearly identified. DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]