Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cut-Leaved Coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata).jpg

File:Cut-Leaved Coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2024 at 10:39:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info Rudbeckia laciniata in Cudahy Woods, Wisconsin State Natural Area. Created by Joshua Mayer - uploaded/nominated by Юрий Д.К 10:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Юрий Д.К 10:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply nice. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 20:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PierreSelim. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The flower head is impressive, but I haven't decided whether the petals are sufficiently differentiated from the background. Even if the separation is adequate, is it exemplary? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The left extreme petal (lower part) is not exemplary differentiated from background but overall composition is wonderful for me and the colors is great. Юрий Д.К 12:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ultimately, I think it should be closer to exemplary to be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I take Ikan's point on board, and I'm not sure this is as clear cut an FP as votes suggest so far. But I quite like the bright vibrant colours and the composition placing the flower head at an angle. It's one of those flower photos that is IMO outstanding as a composition rather than as an identification photo. I could see a print of it hanging on a wall or in a coffee-table book. Cmao20 (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor DoF from F6.3 but real issue is the yellow flowers in the background which ruin the composition. LH crop too tight. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the yellow flowers in the background are benefit, but no issue. Юрий Д.К 15:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The blurred petals of the subject merge with the blurred background flowers. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Busy background with yellow color that steals the show, by competing with the main subject. Technically, quite an ordinary shot, compared to the focus stacking pictures we had, offering more generous DoF, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background too similar with the main subject. It may be a feature when showing camouflage, but not here. Yann (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Юрий Д.К 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Poco a poco (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]