Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Another brick on the wall.jpg

File:Another brick on the wall.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 04:44:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Another brick on the wall.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Another brick on the wall.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Example of photographic color, texture and rythm, elements of design in photography. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral (for now) I can see what you try to show and I don't know why, but this one don't catches me as much as your brooms pictue. But defenitly a great pic with a really cool title! --mathias K 10:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Now  Support for the great educational value in photographic technic. After looking longer on it I like it even more than your brooms picture. mathias K 09:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I see no reason why this should be featured. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose A picture of a brick wall doesn't really have any educational value. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment ... Prove it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, what does it teach to the person looking at it? That bricks are red? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC9
    • That could be one thing. But your questions do not prove your assertion. Prove it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose No particular educational value we are in Art. The artist could work in manual and not automatic. He showed he had a good camera. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC

 Comment Pieter Kuiper and Jonathunder oppose the image based on their opinion, and I have absolutely no problem with that, as it is their opinion, and they are entitled to that. Whether or not I agree with their opinion is inmaterial, and will not try to argue against it. But with your statements and the high fin sperm whale I do take issue, for you are not expressing an opinion, but issuing qualifying statements about the image. Starting with your statement that the image has no educational value, how do you substantiate it? From what criteria do you issue such statement? If you were a photographer, and if you knew about principles of design as they apply to photography, you would then recognize the elements that I mentioned, such as color, rythm and texture, which is what this image illustrates, hence its educational value. What happens here is that if you do not know about graphic elements, you cannot recognize them when you come accross them. Hence your statements about the image not having an educational value. As to me working in automatic and not manual, well, that too is inmaterial for you do not know how I make a desicion about working in manual or automatic. What I will tell you is that I make my desicions based on the zone system. Read about it. As to the nice camera, well, what does that have to do with your oppose? So my request to you and to the sperm whale is to prove that this image has no educational value, since you so authoritatively stated so. I think the participants of FPC deserve the courtesy of an explanation of your judgement. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 CommentAny robot could take this picture. the quality of this picture is not related to work ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 Comment ... and any robot could oppose it too... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose - while it's a very nice image, perhaps even QI, not special enough for FP, in my opinion. Jonathunder (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others, a good picture probably, but not "special" enough for a FP status. --Eusebius (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interest - yes, FP - no --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  Please motivate your opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Very good photo as a picture for the Wiktionary article кирпичный (brick-red). -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• I changed my mind. After doing some sorting, subcategorizing, diffusing tasks among heaps of bricks and brick walls yesterday and this morning, I discovered that this picture is one the few items we have as an illustration of the somewhat more rare "raking stretcher bond with bricks overlapping by one third of their length". So it's a keeper. The File name should be changed into something more informative. I suggest [[:File:Brick wall in León, Guanajuato, 2010-06-13.jpg]] Teofilo (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC) - I am no longer so sure about the bond identification. It could be a header/spanish bond with specific dimensions. Teofilo (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Neutral Teofilo (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
•  SupportNot as simple as it seems to be. -- smial (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's a brick wall...an ordinary picture of an ordinary brick wall. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  A brick wall yes. But not an ordinary modern one. Jonathunder (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  Looks ordinary to me. Even if it isn't ordinary, is a picture of a brick wall really a good choice for a featured picture no matter how good the picture looks? I have a problem with seeing a picture like this close to the magnificent featured pictures that I have seen. Featured pictures should impress people. When people see this, most of them will probably be like "It's just a brick wall." Joe Chill 2 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)