Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Valued image seal.svg

Image:Valued image seal.svg- not featured

Info created by LadyofHats - uploaded by LadyofHats for a different image review system orchestrated by Slaunger -- nominated by CarolSpears -- carol (tomes) 02:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It is an interesting and in itself valuable review system where a good review requires looking at the other images that are available here, researching what the information being conveyed is and not necessarily about personal expectations of images. -- carol (tomes) 02:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 11:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice logo I was wondering when this was going for FPC, and Lady is very good with making these with her SVG skills. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too heavy colours when viewed in a large version, and too many details when viewed as an icon --Romwriter 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR 16:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support For once, I admit I am biased;-) I think it is high quality vector graphics work well illustrating the intention of using the seal. "V" for value (value also begins with v in many other languages). The golden colors for something precious and valuable. Visual caviar when seen large, still recognizeable as a seal when seen tiny as here . The seal has been developed over several iterations based on feedback from this Community discussing it purpose thoroughly. Awesome! -- Slaunger 21:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Nice! — H92 (t · c · no) 08:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pentocelo 19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The purpose was to choose a seal for a classification system (of which I doubt the efficiency), not to consider the result is featurable. Nothing extraordinary in this good work. --B.navez 10:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the same. It's a nice job, but not extraordinary so. Benh 11:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per above. Rocket000 12:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent work, but I don't think we should feature internal Wikimedia designs. --MichaelMaggs 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work done, and the image can also be used for other non-wiki projects as a indication for value due to its understandability. Muhammad 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice but not outstanding --Richard Bartz 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Richard Bartz, and also too Commons specific. /Ö 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MichaelMaggs. --Lerdsuwa 10:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what's next, the Wikipedia logo? + per above diego_pmc
- Comment Not that I have researched this, but I think that the wikipedia logo has some copyright restrictions which would disallow it to be nominated here. -- carol (tomes) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the above. --Aqwis 10:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]