Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Figure-Animation2.gif
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Figure-Animation2.gif, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2009 at 04:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Niabot - uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Niabot (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Superb. -- 99of9 (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very good work. Please keep up.--Korall (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose for 2 reasons: First, the side-by-side placement gives the impression that this is a stereogram (which is not the case, therefore one-above-the-other placement would be less confusing); second, I don't see why a scantily-clad anime figure is used here rather than a "blank" human shape (or even an animal). -- JovanCormac 12:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I know a Commons' user who'd say: objectification of women :) Indeed, if the images are places one above the other, I'll be happy to support. As for the figure used, I don't really care. Wolf (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go so far as to say that this image objectifies women. But the fact is that the "model" seems oddly out of place in an animation designed to illustrate a technical concept. -- JovanCormac 09:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- No? You'll see for yourself when this gets promoted and you-know-who sees this on the main page. :) Wolf (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go so far as to say that this image objectifies women. But the fact is that the "model" seems oddly out of place in an animation designed to illustrate a technical concept. -- JovanCormac 09:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I know a Commons' user who'd say: objectification of women :) Indeed, if the images are places one above the other, I'll be happy to support. As for the figure used, I don't really care. Wolf (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I would love to see this turned into a rotating stereogram (top: blurred, bottom, not blurred) :) G.A.S 13:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support per the above. Would full support a vertically stacked image and would strong support a hunky guy in Speedos. ;) Durova (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment Why does the image stop after full rotation? The motion blur can't be seen if it's a still image... and I don't see any purpose of stopping the rotation.Support --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated