Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phone.svg

File:Phone.svg, featured

Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2009 at 18:17:19

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Pbroks13 -- Pbroks13 (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pbroks13 (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not really commons SVG work but looking cool :-) --Aktron (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good job... but it should be a QI candidate instead. -- Dcubillas (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It made my Firefox crash three times before I'm able to actually see the file in full size, but it was worth it, the near-photorealism here is awesome! →Diti the penguin — 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 09:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dcubillas. —kallerna™ 12:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why it should be a QI (which it already is) instead of a FP. What's wrong with it? Pbroks13 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO Good quality but ordinary subject/composition should be QI not FP... This image has a clearly well deserved QI status.
Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Niabot (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done. Lycaon (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a photograph -Muhammad 12:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm thinking QI. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support funny --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive work. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yes, but so what? No offense or disrespect for the hard work intended but this looks like a sterile job to me. Why mimic reality when one could easily take a shot? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar, while I don't want to undermine the merits of photography, I believe you cannot achieve this perfect an image with photography, particularly not at any resolution. I have to support this. --Specious (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive work. --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured.--Karel (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]