Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oreo cookies
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2025 at 16:22:23 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Oreo
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink
- Creator
- Evan Amos
- Support as nominator – ―Howard • 🌽33 16:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - promo shot with unnatural cut-out background. --Janke | Talk 19:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by Promo, but there is a version without a cutout background. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Promotional, marketing-biased image. ArionStar (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- How? It's a neutral high quality depiction of a pair of oreos. There is no advertisement or digital manipulation to promote the brand or distort reality. ―Howard • 🌽33 04:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- In general, brand products with "well-adjusted poses" doesn't add EV in a photo, IMHO. ArionStar (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- I still don’t see how the photo counts as promo. Would it not be promo if the oreos were poorly posed? ―Howard • 🌽33 06:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but it contains a brand product = low EV. ArionStar (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- How else are you supposed to depict oreos in the oreos wikipedia article? ―Howard • 🌽33 18:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the point; the point is: that's not FP due to low EV because it depicts a brand product. ArionStar (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- How does being an image of a brand product have a low EV? The article is about a brand product, so using an image of a brand product is necessary to illustrating it. ―Howard • 🌽33 11:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's a good question… some criteria here are hard to understand for me… ArionStar (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- How does being an image of a brand product have a low EV? The article is about a brand product, so using an image of a brand product is necessary to illustrating it. ―Howard • 🌽33 11:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the point; the point is: that's not FP due to low EV because it depicts a brand product. ArionStar (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- How else are you supposed to depict oreos in the oreos wikipedia article? ―Howard • 🌽33 18:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but it contains a brand product = low EV. ArionStar (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- I still don’t see how the photo counts as promo. Would it not be promo if the oreos were poorly posed? ―Howard • 🌽33 06:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- In general, brand products with "well-adjusted poses" doesn't add EV in a photo, IMHO. ArionStar (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- How? It's a neutral high quality depiction of a pair of oreos. There is no advertisement or digital manipulation to promote the brand or distort reality. ―Howard • 🌽33 04:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Promotional, marketing-biased image. ArionStar (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by Promo, but there is a version without a cutout background. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose – Free adv with an entirely unexceptional image. – Sca (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose see second bullet point of FP criterion 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Withdrawn. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)