Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Oktava319.jpg

Image:Oktava319.jpg - not featured

•  Info created by Gmaxwell - uploaded by Gmaxwell - nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The quality is good, but I don't think this is FP material. Uria a 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 Comment This is: Image:Knurling closeup.jpg - and it's even today's Picture of the Day. --MichaelMaggs 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 Comment This would be really good in an article (obviously). But not for FP. --Wj32 05:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 Comment I have to agree. This is a high quality picture of a high quality microphone, but i think that is not special enough to nominate as FP candidate. I would nominate it as a quality picture on the spot. Greetings --SvonHalenbach 13:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 Support Well, I think it is one of the best pictures of a technical item in here. --Jeses 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

•  Support / tsca @ 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support The quality is amazing. Seems simple to do doesn't it? Alvesgaspar 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lack of appropriate resp. supporting background. For me a QI. norro 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I asked the same above, so feel free to answer only once: What do you mean here? I do not understand. Thanks! --Gmaxwell 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My english is not too good, so I can't phrase it better. I didn't find exactly what I mean, but I hope, these examples can give you a clue: [1], [2]. norro 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • There's a big difference between those pictures and the picture in question. The picture in question is the absolute best depiction of the microphone itself. It would be suitable for use in a technical article. The pictures you linked are very noisy and have distracting backgrounds. I just don't see how they could be used. If they were to identify the act of performing, then the focus on the microphone is very strange, and if they are actually supposed to just identify the microphone, well, they add too many other distractions. --Cyde Weys 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment. Where is the Meta-data (i.e. EXIF)? --Dschwen 12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah. I don't know where it went. I'll fix it. --Gmaxwell 14:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, fixed now. Thank you for pointing out this omission. --Gmaxwell 04:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose No FP material for me either. --Ibn Battuta 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --medium69 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Lycaon 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not interesting. --MaiDireLollo 15:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 4 support, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)