Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:BambooJI1.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2009 at 10:22:43

Info created by Joi - uploaded by Joi - nominated by Kuvaly.--Kuvaly (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kuvaly (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the species is not identified Lycaon (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Love the composition and the bokeh. --norro 12:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please learn to stick to the guidelines, you keep setting bad examples/precedents for new users. An unidentified image of an organism is NOT eligible for FP, nor is an undersized image. Mitigation is for border cases not for flagrant flaunting of the guidelines. Lycaon (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not an image of an organism. Its subject is light, line, and form, not literal encyclopedic presentation. There is no need to identify the organism. Fg2 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok. Take away the plant, then what's left? Lycaon (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you do it without taking away the light, line and form? The point is that the identity of the organism is only necessary if this photo is to be used in an encyclopedia or factual article about bamboo. A photograph can stand on its own as a concept or mood or abstract without being an encyclopedic illustration of a particular species of organism. In addition to abstract uses, it can form the background for text in a cover page for a Wiki book. It can become a poster. Photographs have many uses other than as encyclopedia illustrations. Fg2 (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis is avoiding the issue that the main topic of this image is an unidentified bamboo. Lycaon (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 18:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP JukoFF (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose way too blue. -- carol (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the composition in not so excellent. --Karel (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like it. I agree with Fg2. --Lošmi (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting mood, etc. Unsharp. Crapload (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and it's little fuzzy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image does not fall within the guidelines, the species is not identified. --Santiago Martín (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, however no encyclopedic value and bokeh in top-center is a bit disorganized --Relic38 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation menu