★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Camassia quamash (Common Camas). If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Question Difficult choice but one of them surely deserves the VI label. Any particular reason why you didn't nominate File:Camassia quamash 6379.JPG or even File:Camassia quamash 6380.JPG which have a (much) clearer separation from the background in thumbnail view? I find the separation outweighing the little obstruction there is on the others. Lycaon (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment It was hard for me to choose, also, but I thought some may object to File:Camassia quamash 6379.JPG because one of the basal leaves is cut off on the right and the base is out of focus. In addition to my comments above on File:Camassia_quamash_6380.JPG, I didn't like the foreground large-leaf plant that is probably a weed but is unidentified. The same or similar species is visible in the nominated image, but is in the corner where it is less objectionable to my eye. All three pictures were taken at f/11, so the depth of field is the same (except for the effect of subject distance which is similar for the three images). But you make a good point that the background of this image is more varied than that of the other two and may be more difficult for the eye to separate from the subject. Thank you for your thoughtful question. Walter Siegmund(talk) 19:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Support As already pointed out by Lycaon, there are several good candidates to choose from, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. I will follow my immediate instinct when looking at the gallery, where I found this image is the cleanest and best illustration of this species. --Slaunger (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you restore the old cormorant image you just deleted so I can retrieve the geocoding that I had added...I would like if possible to add that to all the newer versions...Nice work on your editing too...I appreciate your help!--MONGO (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It is restored now. I don't think I improved your image much, but it was a pleasure to try. Walter Siegmund(talk) 05:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey thanks...well since we have the image duplicated I guess we can redelete it again...I grabbed the geocoding parameter from the old upload and added it to the new one, so we're good to go.--MONGO (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)