Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 E-papieros mod 01.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:2015 E-papieros mod 01.JPG, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2015 at 21:16:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Tack-sharp. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 08:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 09:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose A QI but nothing spectacular. It isn't very high resolution or detailed/sharp. The orientation is odd. It would be more useful if the background was actually white or if the cigarette was being used. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Orientation is such that it could be seen the most important supply side. A completely white background in my opinion looks unnatural. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you rotate this anti-clockwise 90 degrees, the cigarette is vertical (is it is in use), the writing is readable, and exactly the same features are visible. The background here is artificial anyway -- it isn't an environmental shot. I think then to get FP with an everyday object on an off-white background, it would have to be technically spectacular photo. But I'd be much more interested if you could photograph this in some creative lighting. -- Colin (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Orientation is such that it could be seen the most important supply side. A completely white background in my opinion looks unnatural. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Colin regarding the resolution and sharpness and the fact that it is not spectacular. The picture has plenty of encyclopedic value, but it is lacking in the photographic "wow" factor. Perhaps it would have a better chance at being nominated on one of the Wikipedias instead. dllu (t,c) 23:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow, per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree this is a good and useful picture but, simply put, it didn't really strike me in other way. Sorry. --Ximonic (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Weak support The photo is at least nicely done. --Tremonist (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
