Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Al-capone-cell.jpg

File:Al-capone-cell.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 11:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Thesab - uploaded by Thesab - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, The bottom of the furniture is cut off without reason. --99of9 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don' t know why this is a problem. Thank you very much, --патриот8790 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support in order to get rid of the strange oppose reason (FPX). In my opinion all essential parts of the cell are visible and the cut off parts of the furniture are likely not very interesting. bamse (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Agree with Bamse about the FPX template, I was going to do the same thing. Still, I would like to see the bottom of the furniture... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Thanks Bamse for the FPX removal; I am neutral about this picture, because its quality is not wonderful, yet I think it has a great educational value. About the legs of the furniture... I can imagine one has to snap a shot of this cell from a corridor, maybe through a window, and it's not feasible to have the whole furniture on one shot, unless using a wide angle, which in turn would've distorted the whole scene (just guessing). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- actually, I believe this is called a hatch --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough, the FPX was probably too harsh. Sorry. But I strongly believe this is not featurable. If a static scene is not complete, why would you call it your finest? We expect high technical standards for static scenes, and our composition standards should be equally high. --99of9 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Beautiful lighting. --Steindy (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ 99of9: I'm respectfully sorry, but what you expect in FPC is not necessarily what I expect in FPC. Your "We expect" is maybe excessive a little, I'm afraid. For example, in my opinion, a FP is not a QI++ (if it is, then the word "featured" is maybe not appropriate, if I can say that as a non English native speaker), and this one shows something very "special" enough to be featured, maybe... Furthermore, it looks like if the nominator or the creator were not members of this "we". Sorry if I'm wrong, nothing personal here, but that's what I think... --Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FP is not QI++, but the same standards do apply - unless there is a mitigating reason. For exemple the leopard pic, the focus is a little off, but the strong visual impact and difficulty of the shot is a mitigating reason for me. I don't see a mitigating reason here, this shot could be easily duplicated and made better. --ianaré (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]