Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:EmmaFromTheAnimalShelter.jpg

Emma[edit]

Reason: beautiful picture that adds a lot (of emotion) to its article
Articles this image appears in: Animal shelter
Creator: User:ForrestCroce
Nominator: Towsonu2003

Support — Towsonu2003 07:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Fails resolution guidelines and drop shadow is distracting. —Dgies^t c 06:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per resolution. Jorcoga Yell! 07:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not sure if this is serious, but I'll take it that way. Resolution, frame and drop-shadow are the tech flaws. DOF can be taken as a compositional tool. But the enc of the pic is zero. Its just conveying emotion and very POV. --Dschwen(A) 08:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, you're a new user so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... but please read featured picture criteria before trying to post another candidate. Looking at some of our featured pictures and reading some of the old nomination discussions will also be helpful. If you have any questions feel free to ask people about featured pictures. Also, someone with an editor better than Paint might want to crop this image. gren グレン 10:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, is it April? I hadn't noticed. Please read the criteria before nominating an image: the resolution is too low, the border is distracting and unnecessary, the encyclopaedic value of the picture is nil, unless you want to illustrate soppy-looking cat home adverts. 'Cute', 'emotional' or anything along those lines has never been a criteria for making a picture an example of Wikipedia's best work. And re: gren - the nominator is not a new user, he/she has been here for over a year. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 12:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made that claim based on the nominator having only 250 edits... :O gren グレン 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm very biased against cats, but I'd oppose even if I wasn't. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would have more impact if kitty were crying. Also, electrodes not visible. No seriously, I'm opposing on all image flaws already listed above. --Bridgecross 16:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty boring picture. No enc value and no wow factor. -Midnight Rider 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hey, nice to see so many polite people together... A simple "oppose" + "low resolution" would suffice, but who would expect that from such polite people? ;) Towsonu2003 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, well, sorry, but don't you want detaied reasons for the oppose? Frankly the steno style would annoy me. --Dschwen(A) 21:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want trolling, flamebait, and personal attacks implanted into legitimate-looking votes... Towsonu2003 21:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, there tend to be a lot of snarky, hyperbolic comments in the FPC world. I hope you'll stick around and try some other nominations though! It's a pretty rewarding, if patience-testing process. Debivort 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but the low resolution really hurts its Featured chances. Also per all the other flaws stated above. ~ Arjun 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible resolution. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]