Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rocket man
Nice photo of the well known Rocket Man from the Melb. Show
- Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- The surroundings of Rocket Man are a bit overexposed. Also, wouldn't a shot where he is actually flying (as I suppose he can) be more spectacular/descriptive? Phils 12:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with Philis, also the cut off at the bottom doesn't do the pic any good. --Dschwen 16:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah maybe that would be good, but this photo shows The Rocket Man a lot better than if he had his full suit on. I have an an alternative of the actual flight, but unfortunately I wasn't able to get in a good spot. --Fir0002 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, so the pic is not perfect. It is still a nice addition to wikipedia, but does it have to be featured? --Dschwen 13:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly, and I raised this with Fir0002 once before. While I don't think anyone is downplaying his photograpic contributions, perhaps he should be more discerning with the images he chooses to submit for FPC, as the vast majority that have been submitted recently have been vehemently opposed as being relatively mediocre or flawed by the majority here. If that comes across as blunt, I apologise. :) I just think that the number of 'junk' images here need to be lowered. Difficult to judge, I know, but someone who has been participating here for a while has a pretty good idea of what is considered FPC material and what is flawed. Fir0002, this is a reasonably good photo in isolation but I personally don't believe it is of sufficiently high standard for me to support it. Just give us your exceptional shots, not everything you can possible contribute to an article, please! ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well see to me this is a very nice photo. I'm not making a personal attack or comparison, but I think it is much better than say the already featured "posing starlet" photo. To have gotten a nice closeup of Dan Schlund (the rocket man) who if you read the article is the only one in the world actually flying the rocket belt, is pretty hard to do. So for these reasons I don't feel this is "mediocre" but of course you are free to disagree. And I would appreciate not being referred to in the third person if you don't mind. --Fir0002 20:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I did read the article. As I said, I do think its a good photo and contributes to the article since there was no previous photo, but that doesn't automatically qualify it for FPC. It still has to have good composition, exposure, etc. As for refering to you in the third person, I started off the comment responding to Dschwen and then added a comment to you by starting the sentence with "Fir002, ...". I don't see how refering to you by name in a comment not directed to you is inappropriate. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well see to me this is a very nice photo. I'm not making a personal attack or comparison, but I think it is much better than say the already featured "posing starlet" photo. To have gotten a nice closeup of Dan Schlund (the rocket man) who if you read the article is the only one in the world actually flying the rocket belt, is pretty hard to do. So for these reasons I don't feel this is "mediocre" but of course you are free to disagree. And I would appreciate not being referred to in the third person if you don't mind. --Fir0002 20:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly, and I raised this with Fir0002 once before. While I don't think anyone is downplaying his photograpic contributions, perhaps he should be more discerning with the images he chooses to submit for FPC, as the vast majority that have been submitted recently have been vehemently opposed as being relatively mediocre or flawed by the majority here. If that comes across as blunt, I apologise. :) I just think that the number of 'junk' images here need to be lowered. Difficult to judge, I know, but someone who has been participating here for a while has a pretty good idea of what is considered FPC material and what is flawed. Fir0002, this is a reasonably good photo in isolation but I personally don't believe it is of sufficiently high standard for me to support it. Just give us your exceptional shots, not everything you can possible contribute to an article, please! ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, so the pic is not perfect. It is still a nice addition to wikipedia, but does it have to be featured? --Dschwen 13:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose : Disturbing foreground (truck and flag). Too bad the picture wasn't taken sideways, so we can better see what he has on his back Glaurung 07:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Too messy, not a stunningly good image. --Janke | Talk 15:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose now that it is voting time. See above. --Dschwen 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- It looks like me (younger...) with a vacuum cleaner on my back ;-). I want to see him flying !Ericd 01:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Mediocre composition with distracting foreground and background. Camerafiend 02:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. enochlau (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - awkward cropping, distracting elements everywhere, not remarkable. -Vontafeijos 16:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)