Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Japanese Car Accident

Japanese Car Accident

Reason: High Quality, Well framed.
Articles this image appears in: Car Accident
Creator: Shuets Udono

Support as nominator --Rj1020 (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support and make the logo bigger (the thumbnail in the article is tiny)! (and consider a bit of noise reduction/aliasing) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Number plates are not blurred and people are identifiable. Also not sure why this is FP material. Capital photographer (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, the surrounding area of the accident is distracting, especially the repeated zebra crossings, the "accident" is not centred and as an illustration of an accident it just comes across as two bumpers smacking together. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment interestingly this image is an FP on both commons and the Turkish wikipedia. I'm just not seeing it. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect timing, great angle, well framed. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Privacy concerns~~, very distracting pattern on the road, and it doesn't look like they've been in an accident, it looks more like they parked a little too close. Clegs (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The front left panel and door panels are impacted Capital photographer (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had to blow it up to full rez to be able to tell there was any damage at all. Usually with an accident, even a minor fender-bender (I've been in several), there is debris on the road. This shows none. I stand by my comment. Clegs (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~privacy issues make this out of the question.~~ Durova^Charge! 16:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was an issue brought up in the nomination @ Commons. Do not need permission, as they are in a public place and there is no expectation of privacy. I really do not mean to rehash an old issue, but seethis. smooth0⁷0₇(talk) 17:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Australian law may be different to where this was taken, but it entitles a photographer to photograph people at a public event or a crowd in public. It does not allow someone to photograph a couple of strangers just because they're on a street. Capital photographer (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I oppose on quality issues: flat lighting, insufficient visible detail of the damage. Durova^Charge! 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I keep coming back to this for its weird aesthetic, but I don't think it's FP quality. It's interesting, yes, but not beautiful, nor shocking, nor particularly informative. I don't agree with the privacy objection: although one person is identifiable and license plates are visible, there is presumptively no expectation of privacy on a public street. I don't know the nuances of Japanese law, however. Fletcher (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Encyclopedic value is lacking, it does illustrate a car accident very well.Greener Cactus (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User has 25 edits. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So? He's just as entitled to vote as we are. There's no rule saying noobs don't get sufferage. Unless you want to accuse him of being a sockpuppet, your comment is pointless as far as this discussion goes. Clegs (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - FYI, they have as much as admitted to being a former sockpuppeteer. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I read that as admitting to a "negative track record," which could mean anything. Fletcher (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As I've commented before, and undoubtedly will again, that original statement is common practice and is not accusing anyone of anything, nor saying the "vote" doesn't count. It's simply notifying contributors of a new user, with the usual cautions that entails. --jjron (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not a situation where we need to rely on the credibility, judgment, or experience of G.C. An opinion on a photograph stands or falls on its own merits, so commenting on his edit count reads like an ad hominem. Note also the slow edit war in the edit history (of this candidate page, not WP:FPC) between the two of them concerning Papa Lima's link that he added in his first comment. So I see it as a shot, not an exercise of "the usual cautions," which I don't really understand in the first place. Fletcher (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Vote-stuffing by sockpuppets is not only a very real concern but has actually happened at WP:FPC in a few instances. Letting the closer know of very new users is quite common and I agree with the practice. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It seemed a little bitey but I understand your perspective. Fletcher (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking and a good illustration of an accident. Compare with the other illustrations in the article, some quite gruesome. This is a typical, not too serious accident where both drivers are apparently unharmed. Quite possibly that junction is just too complicated and contributed to the accident - a theme of the article. Nice picture. ProfDEH (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A well shot example of a common minor car accident. The colors of the image come together well - the clothing of the waiting people contrasts with their respective vehicles. I think the stripes actually add to the crash point of the image, giving the impression of "impact". Sure, it may be a pretty banal subject but, for what it is, this is ideal - especially next to a serious car accident. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's extremely difficult to get any kind of aesthetic in a picture of a car crash, due to the transient nature of the event. Then to get one with such striking visual features, - well it's not going to happen again any time soon. I think this is terribly encyclopedic, because goodness knows, this is what most car accidents are like. They aren't huge bloody messes. I had no trouble seeing the damage on the car the first go 'round or knowing what was going on. There is plenty of detail and the flat lighting is perfect for the slightly somber mood of the scene. (Plus no blown out highlights that way folks - your favorite complaint!) It's a cool picture. pschemp | talk 20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This photo strikes me as extremely boring. The accident depicted appears to be rather insignificant, and the photo barely shows the damage done to the cars. I mean, it would have been just as effective to lineup two cars so that they're making contact and take an overhead shot of it. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 23:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a very plain picture, nice quality but I don't see where it adds much to the article. Especially compared to other featured pictures. Becky Sayles (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]