Comment Unsure. On the one hand, this is a valuable, useful work, and quite well done, and I don't think anyone wants to say that your work isn't appreciated. On the other hand, the original logo isn't particularly interesting, from an artistic point of view. We obviously need things like this, but I'm not sure if Featured Picture is quite the right category for it - Valued images (when they get off the ground) might be better. In short - great work by you, not so great work by the logo designer =) Adam Cuerden12:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralSupport As Adam Cuerden said, the COA itself isn't quite FP material, but the way it was done definitely is FP-quality vector work. Very well done - better than some FP CoAs I've seen. - Rocket000 03:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Edit: On second thought, I don't know how it could be better either. The more I look at it the more I like it. - Rocket00017:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Скучная фотография, хорошая для статьи, но не интересная как избранные изображения.--Mbz1
Question Could you repeat in English? Normally it doesn't make a difference to me, but in this case your insight might be valuable to others. -- Ianare06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just said that while the image is good for the article it is used for, I do not find it to be interesting enough to get FP status.--Mbz116:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure you could overwrite the original version as you did. All the votes before your correction are kind of invalid now because people voted for a different image.--Mbz117:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems. First problem is that the image's creator might like his/her version better than your edit. The second problem is that people, who have voted for the image already, voted for the original version and might never return to the nomination and never notice that the image was changed.--Mbz115:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeit is a well made SVG. but i am not really sure that is enough to be FP. i wouldnt doubht making it QI on the other hand.-LadyofHats03:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]