Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:FJ Cruiser 2007.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:FJ Cruiser 2007.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2012 at 05:32:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info All by -- Ritchyblack (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Ritchyblack (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)- Support Impressive! I see a few halos on the left but not too bad IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment I am sure that the perspective is realistic considering the photograph is taken from quite near to the ground. However, for me, the perspective distorts the shape of the car and makes it look huge. Also, the top of the bonnet is not visible and normally this would be seen by an observer standing near to the car. I think that a encyclopaedic photograph of a car should have normal perspective, so that it does not tend look like and advert. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but, there are other ways to use the image in an encyclopedia. For example, vehicle snorkel or off-roading and more. --Ritchyblack (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- How did the wheels get so muddy while the inside of the wheel arches look completely clean without any muddy splashes? Snowmanradio (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- The mud areas were almost dried up. Only the left and right of the lane was clay and extended deep. Sorry i use googletranslater. --Ritchyblack (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- How did the wheels get so muddy while the inside of the wheel arches look completely clean without any muddy splashes? Snowmanradio (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but, there are other ways to use the image in an encyclopedia. For example, vehicle snorkel or off-roading and more. --Ritchyblack (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support Arschgeil • Richard • [®] • 10:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXX talk 17:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This image has two licences that are built into the authors template. The two licenses are a non-commercial non-modifiable CC licence and a free art licence. The free art licence is fine here,
but I presume that the restrictive CC license has no place on Commons and should be removed.Snowmanradio (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)- Comment A combination of at least one free license and additional restricted license is OK. --Denniss (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did not know that. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 04:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles
