Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NYPD Crown Victoria

New York City Police Department (N.Y.P.D.) Crown Victoria

Original (not for voting) - A New York City Police Department Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor on Times Square in New York City, United States of America.
Edit 1 (not for voting)
Edit 2 - White Balance Fix, Crop, Sharpen
Edit 3 - White Balance Fix, Sharpen with Original Crop

Reason: This picture is technically good, visually attractive and it has good EV in the articles it is currently used in.
Articles this image appears in: New York City Police Department, Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor and Times Square
Creator: Massimo Catarinella

Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is mostly street and the image should not include logos or names of companies. The lights distract as well, but that is not much of a problem. Zoo Fari 23:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are names of companies in pictures prohibited on Wikipedia? And every aspect of the car is visible...not every picture has to be a close-up. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it can't. I simply said it shouldn't as a candidate of FP. Also, yes, on FP images should be cropped to the subject. Zoo Fari 01:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although FP doesn't allow fair use, I'm not aware of any consensus against showing company signs, and many of our FPs have such signs visible (example: File:New York Midtown Skyline at night - Jan 2006 edit1.jpg). I would suspect textual signs fall more under trademark law than copyright, but I'm not sure. Regardless, you will have to substantiate the view that signs are not acceptable, as we have other FPs that have them. Fletcher (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for sure as IANAL, but I would expect that we would have no problem using photos that contain trademarks as long as they are incidental to the photo and not the actual focus of the photo. In any case, I disagree with Zoofari that a FP should be cropped to include only the subject. Often the surroundings are just as important as the subject itself, especially somewhere iconic like Time Square in NYC. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Distracting background, the car makes up only a small part of the photo (this would not be an issue of course if the background told us about the functions of the car etc.) Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit two. Concerns have been resolved, and now a much more dynamic picture. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Encyclopedic: a good clear capture of a New York City police car. Foreground shows reflections on the wet pavement; adds to the urban feel of the setting. Doesn't look like there are any copyright issues here. Durova^Charge! 06:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much pavement, not enough detail on the car. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - too much red. I suggest tweaking the color balance a tad. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an edit to address this "problem". --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose The edit seems to help color balance, but I find the portrait orientation jarring for a car, which has strong horizontal lines. It also creates too much empty space in the foreground. Fletcher (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Edit 2 The quality is only just sufficient with the crop. The edit fixes white balance and minor sharpness issues. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original per Fletcher, weak oppose crop - seems cramped. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Edit 3 is without a doubt the most aesthetic photograph of the line-up here, but I'm pretty sure we need to crop it for the sake of WP's encyclopaedic value criterion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support to edit 2, but others are probably ok. You have to judge a photo like this in context, and it does add a lot to Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. There are lots of other photos of the car there, but the dramatic lighting, and background really make it stand out. It's not just a car, it's a New York car. :) A photo with a policeman would be even better though. Stevage 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overly contrasty and distracting unrelated logos in background. --Leivick (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor angle. Very easily reproduced shots like this should be close to flawless. Here is a good example of what an automobile FP should look like. Cacophony (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easily reproducible shot? Good luck with that. It was taken at night in the poring rain in the middle of Times Square, which is always crowded with people. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This doesn't work for me. I don't think it flatters the car, or Times Square. I would expect this sort of photo to do at least one of those things, if not both. The car is dirty, its markings are chipped in places, the City of New York sticker can't be seen in detail, and the detail and (interest) of all the various things on top of the car are lost by the angle and background. There are umbrellas around, but no people. I wouldn't go as far as Cacophony and suggest that this sort of shot should be flawless, but I think a whole lot more can be coaxed out of the subject. Maedin\^talk 20:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that aesthetic images are nice, but sometimes you have to acknowledge that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and it has to reflect the truth, not an idealism. If NYC police cars are dirty, and Time Square is dirty, then that is reflected in the photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Diliff, and I agree . . . I found it disappointing that Noodle Snacks' dahlia graceland didn't make it because it had been enjoyed by a rather hungry insect. If anything, I thought that added encyclopaedic value, as I pointed out in my comments. As far as I'm aware, though, police services and fire services go to a lot of effort to keep their vehicles extremely clean. I assume that this is true in New York City, although it may not be as easy to catch the vehicles at their opportune moments. The car is probably only dirty because it's end of shift on a wet day, and if the other elements of the photo had been good enough, this wouldn't have been an issue. It isn't that the car has to be unrealistically clean. And sorry, I hadn't noticed your comments before, which is why my response is so late! :-) Maedin\^talk 08:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. I still disagree with the Dahlia nomination though. The difference between this image nomination and the Dahlia is that an image that illustrates a flower should show the complete flower IMO. A random visitor to the article might assume that all Dahlia's look like that, otherwise. But if the image was used in an article that related to bugs eating flowers, then it might be ideal, although even then you should expect to see a bug actively eating it, not just the leftovers! ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That said, by the way, I agree that the composition isn't ideal. :-) It's just that I sometimes take issue when people want a photo to look prettier it simply isn't the reality of the situation. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, Diliff, where do you stand on this one then? :) Stevage 05:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay okay. I Oppose. I disagreed with some of Maedin's justifications, but I agree with her conclusion. ;-) Compositionally, I don't think that side-on is the best view of a car, and I can imagine a busier but more interesting view of Time Square. It is a difficult location to shoot, but I'm sure it could be done. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd actually agree with the Dahlia nomination, I didn't realise it'd been eaten, neither did most of the supports, therefore it would have been misleading. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You and Diliff have a point about the dahlia, :-) Maedin\^talk 09:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]