Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Police cruiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Police cruiser

A very nice shot of an NYPD police cruiser. This photo is used in several articles, among them police cruiser and light bar.

• Nominate and support - TomStar81 02:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've uploaded a cropped, rotated, sharpened version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-1 02:45

• Oppose I like the effect of the light, but the background is too distracting. --liquidGhoul 08:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I like the background, actually; becuase trying to capture the car in a non-busy street in New York City is one very hard thing to do. Hillhead15 09:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not used by any article. --vineeth 12:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The uncropped version is in many articles, and if the cropped version were promoted it would replace the old image in all the articles. --liquidGhoul 12:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's used in several articles.... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-1 15:36
  • Sorry, i saw only the cropped image. Still Oppose, ack Janke. --vineeth 09:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Opposenot really featured picture calibre.--K.C. Tang 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with above. Alr 15:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, because I agree that it's not quite striking enough. I think the cropped one is better, I wouldn't mind if somebody replaced the old image with that one. Mstroeck 15:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Mundane, not FP material. --Janke | Talk 17:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why exactly do you consider it mundane? TomStar81 00:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because there's nothing special about this image. It's a police car on the street, no more. It is not even in motion. The flash of the light is the only interesting spot in the image. --Janke | Talk 07:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. That hurts. A beautiful NYPD cruiser destine never to be featured simply because its not involved in a high speed chase. I guess it was to be expected though: one must have a love of form to see past such things. TomStar81 09:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it personally! It's not about the car, it's the general look of the image (not "stunning" enough), an opinion that appears to be shared by most voters. With a better background (perhaps blurred because the camera is following a moving car) and a little more dramatic lighting, I'm sure a NYPD cruiser could befeatured! (BTW, we're all spoiled by TV, aren't we? ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this more what you had in mind, Janke? And I'm neutral, before anybody asks. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 13:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Access denied to site. --Janke | Talk 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, second try. Check this. Remember to click the Zoom In button under the image. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No thanks - totally artificial looking. --Janke | Talk 11:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Janke here. Did you really think that would be more appropriate? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, blimey. That was a joke. I wasn't seriously suggesting that that become a featured pic, I was just picking up on Janke's comments on how we are all led to believe that a picture of a NYPD car should be in an exciting car chase with lights flashing and sparks flying. This place is so dull sometimes. Lighten up! —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Deadpan humor doesn't work in text format. A simple ;-) would have helped... --Janke | Talk 17:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes we are. TV has a way of raising the bar, and my guess is that effect is going to be felt here. Its really to bad; this kind of image could easily be used in any number of police car books. I should know. I own several ;) TomStar81 09:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Opppose. I have to admit, I don't find that car very attractive, though. The bonnet/hood is unnecessarily oversized and disproportionate (although this is merely aesthetics, anyhow) and it isn't very stylish. It has the look of a late 1980s/early 1990s car. I'm not saying Australian police cars are the epitome of style but I do think they're a little more attractive ([1] or [2]) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any reason to prefer this image of an NYPD police cruiser over any other. –Joke 16:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's nothing special about this image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As above --Fir0002 www 05:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Background is simply too distracting. Cropped version is significantly better, but not featured picture quality, due to the overly busy background. --Red Penguin 07:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Third image is much, much closer to featured picture quality, but I'm still concerned about the background, which is still mildly distracting. --Red Penguin 07:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Third Image I streched the color of the second image. Now it seems as though the image was taken in the evening. The prior images look as if it were taken on a cloudy day. Alvinrune ^TALK 03:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing against the photographer, but NYPD cruisers have never been more lame. There are plenty of other, nicer types of cruisers (for instance, most states have highway patrol pursuit cruisers made from Camaros and Mustangs) that would make for a better featured pic. In my book, a photo of an ugly woman is ugly no matter how well it's done. Kafziel 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

An ugly woman is still a woman, and if you take note of the title I have simply labeled the entry "police cruiser", not "NYPD cruiser", not "special patrol vehical", just "police cruiser". While Camaros and Mustangs would arguably make better FPs, they represent a small faction of the police force; most police vehicals are caprices and tuareses. This picture is ment to represent these standard cars. TomStar81 23:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that it is a good standard photo of a standard car. I'm not listing it for deletion or anything, I'm just saying the subject matter is very run of the mill. It's not something I'd say, "Wow, that's awesome," which is pretty much what I expect from a featured photo. Why feature something completely standard? Kafziel 04:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - not striking I'm afraid, at least not for me. |→ Spaully°τ 10:25, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
• Support this one. I think it's a beautiful photograph. Judge the photo, people, not they style of the car. Anyway, think those 'stralian cars are lame anyways. ;-) —Encephalon 11:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)