Wiki143:Featured picture candidates/File:2006 Hyundai Getz SX (Australia).jpg

Getz There (Eventually)

File:2006 Hyundai Getz (TB MY06) 1.6 3-door hatchback (2009-03-15).jpg

Original - 2006 Hyundai Getz SX (Australia)

Reason

Meets all WP:CAR guidelines, The car is stock, 3/4 Front view, clean background and of high quality.

Articles this image appears in

Hyundai Getz

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Good EV and nice clean automobile, but unappealing background in my opinion. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I suppose you could say that the car is in a "natural" setting. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I love it, I think the background provides a nice contrast to the smooth shiny car - The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I find the background quite unappealing. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:CAR recommends a non-distracting background, and I'd tend to agree. File:Mazda3 2006.jpg for example is quite reasonable, but it has distracting trees, cows, poles and whatever else coming out of the body works. Either way I'm really not sure how a neutral background has any bearing on the criteria. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • After looking over those guideline, I would have to say Weak Support. I still dislike the background as a fence, but it is non-distracting. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Technically it seems good and it adds some value to the page for its model but I do not think it is among Wikipedia's best work or illustrates the subject in a compelling way. I don't think a plain image of such a car could ever meet those criteria for me but I am willing to be proved wrong. |→ Spaully^₪† 01:47, 21 March 2009 (GMT)
  • File:Mazda RX-8 on freeway.jpg and File:2003 Mazda6 GG Classic Hatch, McMillans Lookout, Vic, 21.12.2008.jpg are the two most recent cars I can remember. Note that the criteria says "or", not "and". Have a look at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits, the images are not particularly compelling or interesting, but they are among Wikipedia's best work because they are clear, high quality and encyclopaedic. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I might have opposed those pictures on the same grounds had I seen them, but they are both more aesthetically pleasing than this - even aside from the model of car - and more striking. As for fruit, I think those photos inherently have more encyclopaedic value than those of models of cars as they are more variable and simply more useful in an encyclopaedia. |→ Spaully^₪† 01:07, 22 March 2009 (GMT)
      • I'll shoot a prettier car next time for you then. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - When it comes to everyday images, such as ones of cars, it takes a real wow factor to make it stand out among other photographs. It is too lacking in dimensions (a particularly high resolution image might have pushed me over to support, that is, if it was very detailed), and simply lacks aesthetic value outside of the majority of car images, at least to me. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 04:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Yeah I don't much care for the background either. Mundane subjects like cars have EV, but need a more striking composition to get FP as they are such common sights. There are also some reflections in the glass obscuring detail inside. Fletcher (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)