Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sega Dreamcast

Sega Dreamcast

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2010 at 17:54:55 (UTC)

Reason: This picture is of high EV in Sega-related articles, has great high resolution, and is considered Quality Image at Wikimedia Commons and is a Valued Picture.
Articles in which this image appears: Sega, Dreamcast, History of video game consoles (sixth generation), History of the Dreamcast
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics
Creator: Asim18

Support as nominator --Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't quite see the point of making it float in white light. The whole cut-out-and-save-as-PNG business seems not ideal. A nice diffuse shadow, maybe a very subtle gradient in the background would look a lot better IMO. --Dschwen 19:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that. Technically, it's very good (and to pre-empt this possible concern, we're good on copyright grounds) but the background isn't, as Dschwen said, ideal. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What light should it float in? Should it have a black background? Gut Monk (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You miss the point, it should not float. Just re-read my comment. --Dschwen 22:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I did misread. Thanks for the heads up. Gut Monk (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support Low EV, but good technical standard. Gut Monk (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Low EV? How so? Do you not feel that an illustration of the console in the infobox in the article about the console has high EV? J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a Gen Y. I've seen a dozen of these things in my life. At some point, they become common. Gut Monk (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh (does that best translate to “neutral”?) Very good technical quality. It adds EV significantly to Sega Dreamcast. But the subject matter necessarily means it is a photograph of 50¢-worth of an injection molded plastic enclosure made in China for a product used by youth who sit on their butts half the day.^(disclaimer) Accordingly, it is a bit IMHO, lacking in “being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” Greg L (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (edit conflict) I mirror much of Greg's thoughts above, and I just don't think this is feature quality, I just don't think this is featureable, and I'd rather us not start throwing commercial product pictures up on the front page, if we feature this one, then theres clearly others that are along the same lines that could be featured, and I wouldn't like to head down that road. — raeky T 22:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FPs need not appear on the main page. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reply" Not all featured pictures need to be eye-catching, as File:EIAJconnector2 edit.jpg seems a bit bland, yet it was promoted. As for the the subject matter, featured pictures are also to help express the interests of Wikipedians and readers, not to be there because a picture looks pretty (not to mention that Video Gaming is now playing a big part in our daily lives and is one of the world's biggest industries). Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 22:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting you: Not all featured pictures need to be eye-catching. Mmmm… perhaps. But, IMO, every picture ought to elicit a desire by the reader to want to either click the picture to see a zoomed version or to click the related article to read-up on an interesting subject. I can’t imagine a better-looking picture of the Sega Dreamcast than this one. Unfortunately, neither can I imagine many of our visiting I.P. readers giving enough of a dump about this image to perform either of those actions. Their typical reaction will be “Yeah… uhh-huh” and then they’ll type “Boobs” into our search field to see if it actually goes anywhere. (Ooh, I see it does) That’s my honest opinion. (so blindfold me and shoot me) Greg L (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a better image, but a consenus at this picture's valued picture nomination was to replace the original picture with this one. And about your concern about readers, there's actually a very large fanbase for the console and a lot of readers would enjoy that a picture of the Dreamcast is on Today's Featured Picture. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 23:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how any of these criticisms relate to the FP criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets 3:2 and 3:3. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. The lighting is fine, good detail, and it's certainly informative. That pretty much covers those two. The only objection could be that the image isn't compelling (which is different from eye-catching), but this criterion is almost never applied. When it is, it's usually just because there isn't a better reason to oppose. Anyway, my point was that none of those issues were actually addressed. I'd also add that IP readers are probably more likely to read about a video game system than about many other subjects of FPs. Finally, I also was talking about the comment above about featuring commercial products. That certainly isn't covered by the criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent shot of the console. I'm not really distracted by the lack of shadows. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV and quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per reasoning in my above post. Greg L (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support. I guess so. The quality's there, the EV's fine. Not mad keen about it going on the main page, but that shouldn't stop it being promoted. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]