Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Choc chip cupcake.jpg

Chocolate Chip Cupcake edit

A chocolate chip cupcake

I'm nominating this picture because it is large and of high quality. It's a picture of a chocolate chip cupcake, ovbiously. It's not mine; it was created by Fir0002.

Nominate and support. - Rid E the Lightning! 21:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too artsy. Doesn't show the whole cupcake and the depth of field is too shallow. howch e ng {chat} 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Most of the image is out of focus. --Cyde Weys 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per howcheng. Nothing wrong with shallow DOF, but that's going too far - only half the subject is in focus. Stevage 12:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good resolution, however the image doen't have many other positive features. The depth of field is too narow, and the image isn't very encyclopedic. --Pharaoh Hound 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it. Also, it looks absoloutely scruptious. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Where is the rest of the cake? Its been selectively cropped out? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too don't really think this is FP worthy. I took the image like that because that was the effect I wanted - it fitted perfectly in the bottom of a white page as a footer. So that's no crop, that's the photo. --Fir0002 www 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It does really really make me want a chocolate chip cupcake, but the image is both blurry and cropped to cut off the whole bottom part of the subject. Staxringold 11:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reasons stated abovesay1988 02:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice and delicious, but a little uninformative. enochlau (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not all that interesting, not a great depth of field, not very encyclopedic. Froggydarb 10:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a nice picture but its not very informative. Geoffrey Gibson 22:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 18:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]