Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Audi e-tron.jpg

File:Audi e-tron.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2010 at 15:49:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Der Wolf (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info world premiere of the electric car Audi e-tron at the International Motor Show 2009 in Frankfurt, Germany
Support -- Der Wolf (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 17:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice image for a car magazine, but not for FP. Kleuske (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A good image, but I feel it to be too commercial for Commons' main page, sorry. (Maybe after 50 years once it has gained some historical value. :-)) --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Don't knock commercial!! Wouldn't it be amazing if every commercial was under a free licence? This one is, and it's got EV, and it's one of our best pictures. Therefore FP to me. --99of9 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral After thinking this a little more, let me set my words differently. If other manufactures notice that there is a great product picture of an Audi in the main page with lots of visibility, they might start contributing free high quality images of their own cars here. I agree that it would certainly be a positive thing. However, while this particular product image is technically perfect, I would prefer to see the car in action for it to be an FP. Or, if it was an exhibition shot like this one, a nice catch in the composition, e.g. related to a person presenting the car, would make it FP IMO. Therefore, I decided to keep my Neutral vote, sorry. Don't get me wrong, this is certainly a valuable contribution to Commons - I just don't think it is an FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kleuske/MattiPaavola --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically perfect, with encyclopedic value and you might even attest it some wow, if you like cars. I would myself never take pictures of cars, but this is not the MOMA, but an encyclopedia. So IMO there is no reason not to feature this. Nikopol (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Korall (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is an excellent and useful image. That it is the product of a commercial enterprise neither adds to nor diminishes that. --KenWalker (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can somewhat follow MattiPaavolas argument, that it would be cooler seeing the car in some kind of interaction, with a road, a driver or something else. On the other hand, another important state for a car in a parked state, and here the exhibition state is excellent because getting an accurate and detailed representation of the car in a parked state is optimal under these circumstances. And I think, that in its form, which could be presented in a car magazine, it is an excellent piece of work as a good representation of these kinds of staged photos. It reminds me of the argumentation and controversy that took place when this model photo was promoted. I would not support a flood of such images though, but it introduces some pleasant diversity in the FP gallery. --Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Coffee // have a cup // 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles