Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brooms mexico.jpg

File:Brooms mexico.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 21:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Brooms mexico.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brooms mexico.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded,nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support An example of photographic texture -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support COMPOSITION! Really nice piece of photographic technic and a prime example for photographic texture. Great! --mathias K 10:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Cephas (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice shot, but I dislike how the left is cropped. Would be closer to best work on Commons if the composition was more balanced in that way. Steven Walling 02:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I am close to nominating this picture for deletion as an out of COM:SCOPE artistic photo without informative purpose. We would need some info about the manufacturer, or the materials used : to which biological species do the vegetal materials belong ? Where is the picture located ? In a shop ? In which city or village in Mexico ? Teofilo (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Out of scope? It's a detailed picture of a common subject that could definitely be of educational value. Hardly out of scope. Being beautiful or artistic doesn't mean it's not edifying, and the artistic elements of composition in no way obscure the subject and its qualities. Steven Walling 20:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We are unable to write a caption for this picture in a Wikipedia article. Are these brooms still used in Mexico today, or some brooms in a museum showing how brooms were manufactured a hundred years ago ? We are unable to provide reliable information about these brooms. Teofilo (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

While it is always better to have more than less info about a picture it is still not necessary that a picture has encyclopaedic value or that it is helpful for a wikipedia article. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Support nice --Sylvy d'Acoz (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Teofilo, relax. -- deerstop. 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No double voting, please -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
      • •  Comment unstruck I see nothing in the history to indicate that User:Deerstop has edited this page more than once, there is no indication of other more serious actions in relation to account User:Deerstop. Gnangarra 01:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like it and we could use it as a depiction of DOF. However, it could be nice to see a little more on the left side. Maybe I´ll nevertheless support later on. Nikopol (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the idea its good but for me the subject should have been shot from a level perspective reather than an elevated perspective that would remove the distraction of the handles in the foreground Gnangarra 01:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support per Mila –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Strange crop, pretty shallow DOF for my taste. Also, I whould have shot from a slightly lower altitude, I feel like there's too much angle, which breaks the possible perspective effect. --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose; Per Teofilo opinion --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Per Deerstop. --Lošmi (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support — MZaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 19:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support for the composition, though I agree more info should be given, the city and to verify these are new brooms in a shop. Name of plant used would also be very useful. --ianaré (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose It does not show the full length of a broom. I think that this image is not very informative. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)