Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seri child.jpg

File:Seri child.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2009 at 17:28:54

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Seri child takes only 5% of the photograph. --Ahnode (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok then... "Trash and Seri child", or maybe "Coca Cola, Trash and Seri Child?" ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You tell me :D --Ahnode (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Low quality RmSilva ^{pode falar!} 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Question any trademark issues ? --ianaré (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Shouldn´t be... public place, not intended for commercial use, it is depiction of a public place, freedom of panorama. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Trademarks don't really affect us, anyway, since it would be hard for us to violate one merely by displaying a picture of a trademarked product or advertisement. And the Coca-Cola logo is free of copyright, both because of its age and because it's probably too simple to be eligible for copyright under U.S. law. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - I think this image has value regarding globalisation and is showing the current state of humanity. --Ernie (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • • Ahhh! Thanks Ernie... there is hope! ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I completely agree this and other recent photos by Tomas have this value, but the FP criteria have a more visual and less cerebral aesthetic. Downtowngal (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks Downtowngirl... I know that aesthetically they are not the prettiest subjects, and the topics even less. They confront and generate rejection, both visually and intellectually... but that is ok... point is made, which is the important part. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - Ok I hereby change my vote to neutral, since I agree on the criteria part. Maybe it would do better as valued image? --Ernie (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor framing and tilted. General quality isn't very good. However, I agree with Ernie (talk and like the picture. --Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question What does poor framing mean? * Comment Image is not tilted... it is called perspective. Subject was photographed at an angle. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Romanceor means that the picture has elements (mainly at the left of frame) that intrude and distract from the composition. Much like when you frame a physical picture, and part of the backboard shows through, due to poor image placement. Can you do a reshoot? There is such potential, but... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment That is in deed what I meant. Thanks for awnsering. --Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 03:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Looks like a snapshot --Muhammad (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Great subject, but I am not convinced by the quality. Yann (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose For me not any special --kaʁstn 16:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 Support boo the lot of you. Lot of talk about how the child isnt done justice and the square parts arent squared up to the frame. Captures something perfectly. Should need no more than that. ~ R.T.G 21:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\^talk 07:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => /not/ featured. Yann (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)