Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:James Webb Telescope Model at South by Southwest.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:James Webb Telescope Model at South by Southwest.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2015 at 10:50:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

James Webb Telescope Model at South by Southwest
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
  •  Info created by NASA/Chris Gunn, - uploaded by Stas1995, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support High educational value, nice composition, and beautiful colors hopefully compensate for the quality. -- Yann (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support /St1995 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Looks great. --Tremonist (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Noisy (the sky), overprocessed (see the halo besides the building), chromatic aberration everywhere, not sharp enough. Far from the technical standards of FP, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC) I forgot: lens flare, ghosts, and perspective distorsion.--Jebulon (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. Is this allowed on Commons? There's no FoP for public artworks in the US and I'm pretty sure this doesn't count as a building. Regardless of whether the photo is a product of a US government agency/employee, it's not clear that a non-governmental agency wasn't involved in the building of the model (although I'm happy to be corrected on that). What I did find was this: The actual telescope is a collaborative project amongst 1000 people in 17 countries, including seven non-governmental organisations. I'm reminded of Cloud Gate in Chicago, which is something that we're not allowed to host on Commons. I know because I inadvertently uploaded a photo of it and had it deleted by an admin. Somehow some images of it remain on Commons, but the vast majority have been deleted. I don't know under what rationale they were kept or not, but I assume they have to be sufficiently abstract that they can't be considered photos of the artwork itself. That seems to be the case for all the images except this one and this one. Diliff (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Jebulon. I don't see this as an artwork, Diliff, although it's a beautiful telescope. Couldn't you take pictures of a microscope lying on a street of the US? I don't think a model of the telescope is different enough from the telescope itself. --Kadellar (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I don't think it has to be 'art' by our normal definition of the word, it just has to be a structure with a copyrightable design that isn't a building (Here, it says that it is only considered a building if it can 'house people')... A telescope isn't a building either, whether it's a model of a telescope or an actual working telescope. This lack of FoP is ridiculous sometimes, it's so hard to know for sure what is okay and not okay. Diliff (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. Way too unrealistic at parts (especially sky). -- Pofka (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:James_Webb_Telescope_Model_at_South_by_Southwest.jpg&oldid=165002912"