Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cucumber and cross section.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2013 at 12:18:48 (UTC)
- Reason
- Full EV and High Quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cucumber
- FP category for this image
- link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
- Creator
- Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Question Is the image soft? The slight diffusion makes the image seem really bright. btw you're misisng an FP category in your nomination above. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Licensing looks off for FP? Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- On Commons. Did we reach an agreement here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- License is fine as the discussion was closed without a consensus but the file res in this case isnt --Muhammad(talk) 16:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- License is fine as the discussion was closed without a consensus but the file res in this case isnt --Muhammad(talk) 16:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- The license is quite uselss for any purposes; but I bet it (the combined CC BY-NC, especially) attracts many friendly supports. :) JKadavoor Jee 05:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- On Commons. Did we reach an agreement here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose License, and size. — raekyt 06:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose GFDL only images are best avoided and certainly shouldn't be promoted to featured picture status.©Geni 22:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment If the license is good enough for the Commons, then we should accept that. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Accept yes. Promote no.©Geni 09:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually that is a categorically incorrect statement: [1]. As it stands 2/3 of the oppose !votes would be struck by the closer for invalid rationale --Fir0002 08:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Don't try and rule lawyer me. If we want to go down that route I'll start looking into deleting this nomination page as a copyvio.©Geni 20:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually that is a categorically incorrect statement: [1]. As it stands 2/3 of the oppose !votes would be struck by the closer for invalid rationale --Fir0002 08:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Accept yes. Promote no.©Geni 09:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
