Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cyrus cylinder

Cyrus cylinder

Reason: It is the first known declaration of the HUMAN RIGHTS, issued by the emperor Cyrus II of Persia. In the 1970s, the Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world’s first charter of human rights. The Cyrus cylinder is now being kept in the British Museum in London.
Articles this image appears in: Cyrus cylinder, British Museum, Human Rights and Yale University
Creator: User:Kaaveh Ahangar

Support as nominator Kaaveh (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support, The distribution of color in the shaded part looks special. --Iranway (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry, could you please clarify what you mean by that? NauticaShad e s 14:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Support, because this is the oldest human right document anyone recorded.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - technical quality: composition, jpeg artifacts, lack of focus at full rez, and lack of detail in actual subject. de Bivort 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Just for human right NOT MORE! --Niknafs (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good information for people in the world.--Mani1 (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Debivort. Also, there seems to be some canvassing going on in this nomination. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*. I added an ugly red box and struck a few votes due to invalid reasoning to get the message across that people should be commenting on the picture, not the subject. I guess we might need a featured picture director after all. MER-C 10:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not doing the Animal Farm thing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I unstruck the votes because I don't think it is fair unless they were confirmed to be sockpuppets or anonymous voters (one user has been here since 2004, not sure about the others), and nothing in the FP criteria actually requires users to provide a reason to vote or not, and while someone suggested canvassing was going on, no actual evidence was provided. Thisglad (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are choosing Featured picture not Featured Object! Hessam (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose, I do not believe this meets any of the FP criteria. The object is to small, reflections which are easily removed with a circular polariser are in the way, there is ISO noise, lots of distracting content, is not unique, would not enhance the article. The edit shows what it should be more like, though the edit certainly isn't FP material either.Capital photographer (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a much better photo could be easily taken of the subject. Cluttered background, subject is a small section of the entire picture, noise, artifacting, poor lighting for the angle, glass in the way, camera shake, can barely see the subject at all. Get closer to the subject (i.e. about a foot lower and right up against the glass, straight on to it, use a tripod and zoom in, about 800 film speed and a diffuse flash if possible. Alternatively, get someone with a good camera to take it. Possibly compromised nom too. E4T3A2 —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 10:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I get a chance, I'll have a go at this one. Its not usually easy to get a good shot through a reflective glass box though, particularly as they would likely ban tripod use. I'm not sure it would be FP material. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need a circular poloriser to remove glare and a monopod or suction-tripod. Capital photographer (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a snapshot with no value in either technical or subject quality. Besides, looking at the first several votes this nomination is a very clear troll. Lipton sale (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good picture of this object would be worthy of FP, but not this mediocre attempt. --Janke | Talk 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on oppose This image is a much better photo of the same object (still not FP quality though). Mangostar (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... it's all been said. crassic!^[talk] 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the usuals. SingCal 13:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per pile-on. This is a worthy subject matter; a pity it can't be removed from the case and professionally photographed. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose both A snapshot and better centered version of a snapshot. Matt Deres (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no "real" subject in this photograph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrittk (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]