Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bentley badges

Bentley badges

Self-nom: very sharp, eye-catching, informative. — Dan | Talk 22:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

~~Neutral~~ - I could be wrong, but I don't think the by-sa-cc license is compatible with the GFDL license (which is required to be a featured picture). Otherwise, I would support. Kaldari 23:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, the instructions say "covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license", and only fair use is specifically ruled out, so presumably another free license such as cc-by-sa is quite acceptable. — Dan | Talk 23:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Support, very nice. And yes, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are both suitable licences for FP. James F. (talk) 23:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support, for lack of reason to oppose. Phoenix2 16:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I find the reflections of the people too distracting and messy. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. The reflections make this picture look too complicated. --Bernard Helmstetter 00:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - very nice. I much prefer the coloured one, it catches the look of chrome better (not surprisingly!!) - Adrian Pingstone 16:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral - I definitely prefer the color version. Kaldari 18:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I find the cropping/framing uncomfortable. Enochlau 05:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support B&W neutral for the other. This link is Broken 16:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose reflections. -Lommer | ^talk 28 June 2005 04:16 (UTC)
Oppose. The higher contrast B&W version helps, but here the reflections are quite distracting. I've not tried, but presumably a shallow DoF can help reduce the impact of reflections in situations like this. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 07:40 (UTC)
Support both, esp. B&W. James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 10:55 (UTC)

Not promoted +6 / -5 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)