Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:2006-01-28 drop-impact backjet.jpg

Image:2006-01-28 drop-impact backjet.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Roger McLassus -- 06:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitated for two months before nominating this picture because of the suboptimal lighting, which I was unable to avoid with my limited technical equipment. But finally I have made up my mind for nomination and Support because such a backjet is very difficult to catch. Roger McLassus 06:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 00:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- even though the thumb looks average, the fullsize image is great! -- Boereck 09:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- My english is bad but I hope everybody will understand me(:-|)... Ok, it's a good photo, but... how many photos of drop impacts must be included in WikiCommons and featured (I personnally prefer Image:2006-01-28 Drop-impact.jpg and Image:2006-02-13 Drop-impact.jpg)? Is it a competition for the one who will have the greatest number of photos featured? What's the interest for WikiCommons? I believe that people should think more about the cost of the memory space for the Wikimedia foundation... El Comandante 13:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The backjet shown in this picture is a characteristic hydrodynamic phenomenon and cannot be found in any other picture in the commons yet. Backjets are normally invisible since they last too short a time for the human eye. So the scientific and encyclopedic value of such a photo is considerable. Roger McLassus 15:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, the developers have repeatedly flagged that "running out of space" is not an issue. So I personally do not accept this argument as valid, especially when en.wp allows an increasing variety of cruft articles, from pokemon-cruft to porn-cruft to whatever... Very likely we don't need any more pictures of certain subjects (sunsets!), but it doesn't seem to be in the wiki spirit to restrict people from adding them. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 18:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting. Not an interesting photo for water drop. -- Lerdsuwa 10:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lighting, bad background. How many more drop impact pictures are we going to see here? --Dschwen 16:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack Lerdsuwa and Dschwen —Pixel8 13:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 06:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though this would not be the only drop-impact Featured image, I just love it --Filip (§) 11:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 13:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like context, light, composition, and subject... so... hmmmmmmm... Francisco M. Marzoa 15:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition, bad lighting —norro 21:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Norro. -- aka 07:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It may be a rare event, but sorry --- Try again... Freedom to share 20:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 12:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 00:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decision I withdraw my nomination Roger McLassus 13:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 10 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]