Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model K-132, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png

File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model K-132, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2012 at 01:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by a professional photographer on behalf of Steinway & Sons - uploaded by Fanoftheworld - nominated by Hereiamfriends -- Hereiamfriends (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a very good photo of an upright piano built in Germany by the famous piano manufacturer Steinway & Sons. -- Hereiamfriends (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be SVG --The Photographer (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things can be SVG. How is this a valid objection? Óðinn (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like this --The Photographer (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question – This is a nice-looking and useful image but it's embedded with an unnecessary color profile (ISO Coated v2 [ECI]). Shouldn't it be resaved as untagged RGB? Also, what color is the exterior wood? It reads as black. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer to SteveStrummer – I have no knowledge about color profiles, ISO Coated v2 [ECI] and RGB, so I am not able to answer your question, sorry. But I can tell that the color of the exterior wood is black and high gloss polyester finish. --Hereiamfriends (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can commercial licensed pictured be FP ? --Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer to Telemaque MySon – Yes they can, if you read here: Commons:Image guidelines and Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Formal_things. And by the way, why shouldn't they... I'll recommend that you read the Commons:Image guidelines and the Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Formal_things before voting. --Hereiamfriends (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Óðinn (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too down-sampled. --Claritas (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to Claritas – What do you mean by "down-sampled"? --Hereiamfriends (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, some of the opposes here are strange. SVG??? Anyway, this is a fantastic picture, must have required a great deal of work, is aesthetically pleasing, and is technically excellent. I agree the downsampling is a negative (it means the number of pixels have been scaled down from the original photograph). PNG is a lossless format, and is sort of appropriate for pure white backgrounds, so I don't think that choice is necessarily bad. Overall, I think the reviewers need to be fair to an outside photographer - if one of us had taken this, it would be FP for sure. --99of9 (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 99of9 -- Jkadavoor (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 99of9 -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no info on the equipment that was used to create this file. While downsampling might be possible, we have no evidence for it. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 15:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trongphu (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Looks perfectly fine to me!Trongphu (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gryffindor (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 08:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects