Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rolls-Royce Silver Seraph
Rolls-Royce Silver Seraph edit
- Reason
- Angle shows all dimensions of vehicle; 1930 Rolls-Royce Phantom in background provides generational contrast
- Articles this image appears in
- Rolls-Royce Silver Seraph
- Creator
- Jagvar
- Support as nominator — Jagvar 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose While it is true that the 1930 Phantom provides a nice contrast, it is destracting. Try to keep the subject the only point of interest in the photograph. The people as well as the other automobiles in the background are distracting, and the completely blown tents and sky are major detractors from the picture. The portions of grille frame and the ornament are also blown. Before I forget, there also is chromatic aberration around the trees , tents and background cars. Poor image quality too. Did you read the criteria before nominating? If not, please do so. Thegreenj 21:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do thank you for the depth of your constructive criticism, but a slightly less patronizing tone would be very much appreciated. My editor did put this photograph on the front page of the newspaper in 2005, and it appeared in the company newsletter, so while it may not be up to your standards, I hardly think it is the piece of trash you make it out to be. By all means oppose it, but please voice your opinion in a way that is, for lack of a better phrase, less cruel. Jagvar 22:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise. I assume when you say that I made your photograph out to be a piece of trash, you refer to my comment that it is of poor image quality. I should have specified that I meant that the image didn't have the photographic quality of a featured picture, having present, though tolerable, amounts of grain and lacking the crisp feel that many FPs had and that would be appropriate. If there was something else I said that was "cruel," tell me, and I will be happy to specify in a more objective manner. I try not to be overly opinionated and there is something that I can physically point out in the photograph for each of my objections, if you request. Otherwise, I hope you know the very high quality expected by Wikipedia's featured status. A newspaper photograph need to illustrative and clear, which this photograph is. However, a featured picture goes beyond that; it rises far above most snapshots. I am always impressed with every single featured picture. Give them a look, and then ask yourself, "I know this is a good picture, but is it that good?" Thegreenj 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your succinct explanation. It seems I merely misinterpreted your tone before. Lord knows I am always open to constructive criticism; I'd never improve without it. Jagvar 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise. I assume when you say that I made your photograph out to be a piece of trash, you refer to my comment that it is of poor image quality. I should have specified that I meant that the image didn't have the photographic quality of a featured picture, having present, though tolerable, amounts of grain and lacking the crisp feel that many FPs had and that would be appropriate. If there was something else I said that was "cruel," tell me, and I will be happy to specify in a more objective manner. I try not to be overly opinionated and there is something that I can physically point out in the photograph for each of my objections, if you request. Otherwise, I hope you know the very high quality expected by Wikipedia's featured status. A newspaper photograph need to illustrative and clear, which this photograph is. However, a featured picture goes beyond that; it rises far above most snapshots. I am always impressed with every single featured picture. Give them a look, and then ask yourself, "I know this is a good picture, but is it that good?" Thegreenj 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, Per Thegreenj 8thstar 22:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion: Shouldn't the license plate be blurred due to privacy concerns? Real96 09:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)