Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spiral
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Spiral Slinky
Used in the article Spiral Slinky.
- Nominate (self nom) and support - Roger McLassus 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, basic and background is boring. --Thorpe | talk 16:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose
I'm not convinced this illustrates a spiral. The definition in the article is "turns around some central point or axis, getting progressively closer to or farther from it, depending on which way one follows the curve." None of the pictures in that article illustrate something that meets this definition - only the drawing does.Zaui 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Judging it as a Slinky, my vote still stands, on the grounds that it doesn't 'best illustrate' the subject. I agree with Veledan below - capture it in motion. Zaui 21:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose This would be much better on Slinky than on spiral so I've added it to that page. I still wouldn't support it for FP though - it's a bit monochrome and static. Photograph one in motion walking down the stairs with a fast shutter speed and I'll support it :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support nice clear low noise photo. I'd like it even more if the shadow wasn't cut off. I echo the concerns of other people that it's not a spiral and shouldn't be in that article -- slinky would be better. chowells 20:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is not a spiral at all, it is a helix: and so are those other three photographs on the spiral page so I have removed the lot. I don't think the short Helix article needs any more images so I haven't added any of them to it though I did add this pic to Slinky ~ Veledan • Talk 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- The article slinky contains the sentence "The shape is a simple spiral". Is this true or not? If not, it should be corrected. Roger McLassus 22:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - As mentioned above it is not a spiral, but I don't think I would support it from slinky either - not interesting enough, although not a particularly easy object to photograph. I'm with Veledan | Spaully 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, as it isn't a very interesting angle for a photograph of a slinky. I would prefer something similar to a slinky in motion, but that's probably just me. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support I love how you can see diferent colors reflecting off of it.--Lewk_of_Serthic 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support I agree. The colours where you would not expect them are part of the picture's charm. Calderwood 08:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support now that it is in slinky. Encyclopedic enough to be FP. Have you looked at what it replaced? --Janke | Talk 09:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: there's a dead pixel at 720x590 ~ Veledan • Talk 18:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Hein 22:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support I had a slinky once; unfourtunatly I loved it to death. This is a very nice picture. TomStar81
- Oppose. It's a nice, clear image, but unfortunately, there's nothing special about it. enochlau (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. The picture only shows a piece of metal. There is nothing that makes it worthy to become a featured picture. - Alanmak 22:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - good pic, but not spectacular. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Briseis 13:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Kessa Ligerro 07:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Good, but not very exciting. ed g2s • talk 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support! Very good picture, very featured-article and wikipedia-esque. by User:Mac Davis Calderwood 11:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Mayamaxima 08:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
