Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Vitrification1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Vitrification1.jpg featured
[edit]
Nominate
Vitrification Experiment — Minto 23:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Support — Minto 23:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)- Support strangely beautiful Lycaon 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support Rex 00:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose what is the point of making commercial photo FPC Gnangarra 01:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The point of featuring pictures is not only to encourage wikipedians to create (and upload) good pictures, but also to find them (and upload them, if they are public domain). But since most wikipedians cannot privately afford a professional photographic equipment, I suggest we should have two categories of featured pictures: A (for private ones) and B (for public ones). Roger McLassus 09:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I thought the point of featuring pictures was to mark and show the greatest pictures on commons, and not directly approve or encourage photographers, am I wrong?... Minto 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I guess so. Without any featuring the "greatest pictures on commons" would be just as great. But featuring is a method of increasing their number by encouraging people to create and find new excellent pictures. Roger McLassus 10:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I thought the point of featuring pictures was to mark and show the greatest pictures on commons, and not directly approve or encourage photographers, am I wrong?... Minto 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The point of featuring pictures is not only to encourage wikipedians to create (and upload) good pictures, but also to find them (and upload them, if they are public domain). But since most wikipedians cannot privately afford a professional photographic equipment, I suggest we should have two categories of featured pictures: A (for private ones) and B (for public ones). Roger McLassus 09:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support really cool, it looks like an egg! pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 07:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose looks good, but agree with Gnangarra -- Godewind 08:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral good picture, but given its professional origin the depht of focus could be better. Roger McLassus 09:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)- Support - Good -- Fabien1309 10:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - not bad but ... - YolanC 14:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support very illustrative, perfect for, say... an encyclopedia! -Quasipalm 15:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support Francisco M. Marzoa 11:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- professional equipment yes or no; probably not the right place to discuss this issue! the picture is well above average!-- Boereck 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support —Luigi Chiesa 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Glass is poured into a carbon form. Never seen but nothing special either. The glass has about 1200 °C with nearly white radiation, so the rest is dark. No lightning is needed. Nothing special from a technical point of view.127.0.0.l 18:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Ygrek 19:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support Thryduulf 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support Greycard 08:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
13 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral -->Roger McLassus 06:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
