Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BilbaoAmor.JPG
- Reason
- I think it meets all the basic technical criteria, it's eye catching, relatively well-composed, and provides a rather witty (if I do say so myself) angle on the article.
- Proposed caption
- A sculpture in Bilbao, Spain, created by Robert Indiana, based on his iconic 1976 "LOVE Sculpture" in Philadelphia's LOVE Park.
- Articles this image appears in
- LOVE Park
- Creator
- NoMoreWorkPlease
- Support as nominator NoMoreWorkPlease 05:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose — Did you just join Wikipedia to nominate this photo? I won't even bother going into details, you obviously didn't read the featured picture criteria. ♠ SG →Talk 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously you are right, obviously you don't need to go into details.-NoMoreWorkPlease 06:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have a hard time assuming good faith when users who have just joined on this very day, and whose only edits to article space has been adding images they uploaded, start nominating their own pictures for featured status. I was probably a little harsh, and for that I apologize, but my general remark stands. ♠ SG →Talk 06:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Uploading a photograph is still a contribution is it not? Most people don't even bother adding anything, other than vandalism. We should encourage people to add more photographs, I think. Just my "two cents" --Hadseys 11:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Right - Hey, at least it's not like 300px like most of them! It's a good picture, so I can see why they nom'ed it...and who knows - maybe the FPC process was enough to turn them from a lurker into a contributor. Of course it's got some problems, so it's not really enough for featured status, but let's hope that there's more to come from NoMoreWorkPlease. On a sidenote: someone needs to make sure this user knows about licenses - This image doesn't have one! tiZom(2¢) 14:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am not complaining about uploading photos, I'm talking about how a new user's first action after uploading and adding their photo was to nominate it for featured status. I'd rather people become more familiarized with Wikipedia and its rules beforehand. The image has no licensing information: they didn't read the uploading instructions. The image must have a free license to even nominate it: the user didn't read the featured picture criteria. This image is of subpar quality: the user did not take the time to see what exactly we consider to be worthy of FP. Nominating pictures for featured status is not something someone who has just joined should be doing. They should be learning more about Wikipedia and its sister projects first. Heck, we usually even ignore votes from users who have not participated in the article namespace. But, hey, maybe I'm just a jerk. ♠ SG →Talk 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Right - Hey, at least it's not like 300px like most of them! It's a good picture, so I can see why they nom'ed it...and who knows - maybe the FPC process was enough to turn them from a lurker into a contributor. Of course it's got some problems, so it's not really enough for featured status, but let's hope that there's more to come from NoMoreWorkPlease. On a sidenote: someone needs to make sure this user knows about licenses - This image doesn't have one! tiZom(2¢) 14:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Uploading a photograph is still a contribution is it not? Most people don't even bother adding anything, other than vandalism. We should encourage people to add more photographs, I think. Just my "two cents" --Hadseys 11:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have a hard time assuming good faith when users who have just joined on this very day, and whose only edits to article space has been adding images they uploaded, start nominating their own pictures for featured status. I was probably a little harsh, and for that I apologize, but my general remark stands. ♠ SG →Talk 06:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously you are right, obviously you don't need to go into details.-NoMoreWorkPlease 06:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unappealing composition, messy background, blurry in full size. --Janke | Talk 07:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose A bit grainy, jpg artifacts. However, I like the subject (widely reproduced piece of modern art) and the angle/composition. Please contribute more. I don't have a hard time assuming good faith. --Bridgecross 13:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per SG. Cacophony 21:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
