Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:2005–2008 Citroën C4 hatchback.jpg

Citroen C4 Hatchback

Reason: High quality image of Citreon C4 Hatch. Although some may not like the somewhat dark lighting of the image, I deliberately choose to photograph just before dusk so that I'd be able to capture the car with its lights on.
Articles this image appears in: Citroën C4
Creator: Fir0002

Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - License plate? —Ceranthor 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed --Fir0002 22:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's different about this car as opposed to this and this that it merits "dark lighting"? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned in the nom, I wanted photograph the car with its headlights on (for something different) --Fir0002 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you also particularly choose for the car to be a dark colour, in the dark lighting? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not entirely, but I'm pleased with the result. If it were a light colour such as yellow or white or even blue the darkness of the scene would be much more apparent. A black car should, by definition, look close to black even in sunlit conditions. Therefore shooting it at night doesn't detract at all from the colour rendition and so it makes good sense to photograph a black car at night IMO. --Fir0002 02:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Illustrates vehicle well. I do have one question though. Why are the Citroen logos on the wheel hubs not blurred? Does this vehicle have some kind of bearing system to keep the wheel not covers from spinning? If so the image has extra value for illustrating this feature well. --Leivick (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are blurred. Think of angular velocity vs. radius, and you can figure out why they don't look blurred... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good, sharp image. Muhammad(talk) 18:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low enc because of choice of lighting. For a good, high enc picture of a car you need to see all details. Fender and bumper are almost totally featureless here. --Janke | Talk 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for exposure; don't think a darker image is merited just to show headlights, unless there is something really impressive about them. They look pretty normal to me. Not to say it's a bad shot; just not a FP in my mind. Fletcher (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and composition, looks like it stepped right out of a commercial. Clegs (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lighting combined with the fact that it is a black car leaves the image lacking pop. I don't think this image would attract readers interest. Mfield (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~Weak Support Same for me as prev FP's of similar cars - It's just not very interesting... Doesn't make you stop as it's grabbed your interest... It's a mass produced, commonly seen car... Maybe in 20 years if this becomes a "classic" car this would be worthy of a FP but for now its just another car... for me a FP of a car needs to be a classic car, something with a bit of wow, something not seen that much hence need to see on wiki what it looks like... Sorry, but this is just a boring pic - excellent quality but boring... Gazhiley (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well actually there's nothing in the WP:FPC criteria which demands unusual or rare examples of things. For instance we have an FP of an everyday tomato. The EV of an image is of primary concern at en:FPC so as long as it's well photographed.... but I guess "wow" factor is inherently subjective so I guess you're free to hold that opinion --Fir0002 09:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose so... I've changed my vote to weak support then as I still think for a "featured" picture it's rather plain, but it is excellent quality and meets the criteria... Gazhiley (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it looks like the pictures I can see when I open up almost any magazine. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be a good thing as far as quality and so on go?
  talk) 07:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No consensus MER-C 02:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]