Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pregnant woman black and white shadows.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Pregnant woman black and white shadows.jpg - not featured[edit]
Info created by Tom and Katrien — uploaded by Grenavitar — nominated by norro 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Support norro 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Neutral i like the compostion but the face of the woman is half iin light and half in darkness, it is better, fo me, if it is all in darknes or all i light. --Jacopo86 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The background is disturbing. Due to its darkness, the person shown is practically a silhouette, but the characteristic silhouette of a pregnant woman is destroyed by the positioning of the arms, the towel, and the face's deviation from side-view. Furthermore there seems to be something in the lower back resulting in an implausible outline. Cutting off the legs is not commendable either. Roger McLassus 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)- Neutral Roger McLassus is right, but... There is something more about the pic. Hard to describe it. It's not technically perfect, but has lots of potential, IMO. --Erina 18:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - MPF 20:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Wikimedia Commons is for teaches and informative contents there thus only useful contents, NO privat gallery - Andreas.Didion 22:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't unserstand this comment. The woman isn't even recognizable. How does this pic try to make commons a private gallery?--Dschwen 07:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Very recognizable indeed, just up the brightness and the contrast, and there she is. This also reveals the graininess and streakiness of the image. Lycaon 07:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- ?????! That's what you call very recognizable? Yeah all pictures in my private gallery have to be decyphered like this ;-). --Dschwen 19:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Very recognizable indeed, just up the brightness and the contrast, and there she is. This also reveals the graininess and streakiness of the image. Lycaon 07:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't unserstand this comment. The woman isn't even recognizable. How does this pic try to make commons a private gallery?--Dschwen 07:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Basically a dark silhouette on light background, rest of details are badly visible. No, I don't think this should be featured picture --Leclerc 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. It does have lots of potential. It is a very tasteful rendition of a a pregnant womans shilouette. To me that is informative content. --Dschwen 07:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Adamantios 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as said, there is a lot of potential, but somehow it is a leaning composition, of course, not that dramatically it sounds like, but in a way it seems to be leaning--Queryzo 14:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose A pregnant woman's silhouette might be better solved with a simple icon design, rather than a photo with so little information. --Javierme 21:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose due to distracting background. Perhaps if that were cleaned up? --MichaelMaggs 17:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as above -LadyofHats 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shant 15:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose it isn't interesting or informative enough to be a featured picture eirisssa
- Oppose it's interesting as an exercise in lighting, composition and actually making the viewer try to figure out what it is. Unfortunately those qualities aren't good for illustrating encyclopedic content. I'd say it's good as an art shot but lacks the subject-illustrating qualities needed for FP. Roadmr 23:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
4 support, 10 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 13:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
