Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/New York Pigeon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] New York Pigeon

Image:3780.JPG
Pigeon on the Empire State Building

I think this is a really neat photograph that captures the size of New York City. This was taken ontop of the Empire State Building. This photograph appears in the article: "New York City."

  • Nominate and support. - Polarqueen 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Above user "Polarqueen" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The city is blurry and the picture is dominated by the pigeon. Not illustrative of NYC (unless you're trying to show that the pigeons are taking over). Night Gyr 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Night Gyr. --Pharaoh Hound 19:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose An OK idea for a shot, but not very encyclopedic -- ie what is the point the photo is trying to illustrate? SteveHopson 20:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The photo is actually a philosophical statement. It shows New York through the eyes of the pigeon, an often unappreciated bird (because of its so called common nature), one that is also often overlooked because of the busy life of the average American citizen who has not the time to stop to enjoy it and such a glorious view.
Oppose: Hmm, sadly "philosophical statement" is not really compatible with "encyclopaedic". It would be much more interesting at pigeon, but overall it doesn't really show either NYC or the humble pigeon well enough for FP. Stevage 08:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Hmm, sadly you don't know how to spell "encyclopedic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.193.152 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 16 June 2006

Hmm, sadly you don't know how to indent comments. --Tim1988 talk 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, sadly, both 'encyclopedic' and 'encyclopaedic' are valid depending which side of the pond you live on. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nice idea, but unencyclopedic. deeptrivia (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not suitable for Wikipedia FP, but head over to Commons and try there, it is a nice shot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Incorrectly nominated, so I have renominated. Awful photo anyway. Oppose. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 09:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Do you really think it's awful? :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.193.152 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 June 2006
      • 1. Please indent your comments properly. 2. Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~). 3. Yes, I do think it's really quite a bad photo, even as an artsy shot. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from Anonymous: Sure, the sky is way too blown out, it's blurry, and the colors in general are too washed out. A nice idea but not well executed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.92.108 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 16 June 2006
  • Oppose, poor quality. Phoenix2 21:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral This is quite interesting, only problem I have is the cut off tail --Fir0002 09:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have had to re-nominate this page because the original nominator didn't do it properly (they created a new section on FPC rather than a subpage). Also note that User:67.33.193.152 (a suspected sockpuppet) removed several negative votes, so I have reverted the page. Please continue voting as normal, placing votes above this notice, but remember to check the history. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment excuse me, Vanderdecken, but i find it offending that you would call me a sockpuppet.I am my own person. I make my own decisions and have my own opinions. I have nothing to do with "Polarking" or whatever the name is.67.33.193.152
    • You are a suspected sockpuppet, like it or not. If you disagree, you can argue here, not on FPC. And remember to sign all your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end. To other voters: Please place all votes above my notice. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Heyhey, due to recent evidence, you are a sockpuppet, and you're blocked infinitely! The GarrettRock sockpuppeting case is now closed, with 10 puppets including Garrett having been blocked. So much for WP:FAITH. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted