Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Super Nintendo

Super Nintendo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 00:05:45 (UTC)

Original – The best selling console of its era, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System continues to be popular with video game players, some who make their own homebrew ROMs.

Figure 2: Detail of wire where thickness and edge clarity are issues

Reason: Beautiful with high resolution, good EV, and a very important product.
Articles in which this image appears: Super Nintendo Entertainment System + 6
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics
Creator: Evan-Amos

Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Replaced abbrev SNES with "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" in caption. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry, force of habit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, there is an equally high quality image of the Super Famicom by the same editor. They could become a set. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I did get your email by the way, and will respond in the next few days. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well executed but not compelling. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is an excellent picture, the clarity and resolution are great! But there is just one problem I can't get past:

Is the encyclopedic value good enough? Sure the SNES was the best selling console of its generation, but that goes for any console at any time. What I am saying is, if that is the main value to Wikipedia (that it was the best selling console of its generation), shouldn't pictures of the NES (Best selling of the 3rd generation), Playstation 1 (Best selling of the 5th generation), Playstation 2 (Best selling of the 6th generation), Wii (Best selling of the 7th generation), and the Nintendo DS (Best selling handheld console) also be featured for that same reason? It would not seem fair to not feature those consoles also, as they have the same EV. Dusty777 (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following this reasoning. A featured picture of a bird has not stopped us from promoting a featured picture of another bird species (or even sometimes a substantially different view of the same species.) Rmhermen (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also fail to see how you consider the EV not high enough. The simple fact that a console has its own article is enough EV for a picture of said console. That being said, even at Commons with Valued Image (which only allows one image in each scope) these consoles could be nominated separately. The only reason I didn't nominate all of them at once is to avoid swamping the FPC page with Evan-Amos' work. If these three (this one, the camera, and the NES Gun) are well received, I'm sure myself or another editor will start picking through the other pictures contributed by Evan-Amos. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also fail to understand this argument. Let's consider this subject/article/image EV value on its own -- the other games consoles don't affect this image.

weak oppose I personally don't like the image with no shadows at all. File:SNES-Model-2-Set.jpg is better for having retained some shadow (thought the shadow of the cable has still been removed). However, the use of an eraser round the wire hasn't been carefully done and the wire appears to change thickness along its length. Has the perspective been adjusted -- just looks a wee bit odd? Otherwise it is a good picture, sharp from front to back. Colin°^Talk 12:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The white background is fine, but the "punch-out" look is weird, IMO. It would look better with some natural shadows. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like this photographer's work, so I say well done to Evan Amos. The lack of shadow is not an issue to me, nor is the "compelling" issue. It's as encyclopedic as it can get (compare to many of our photos of fruit; nothing special, they just represent the subjects well). That said, I think the comment above made about the thickness of the wires could be an issue (see Fig 2). If it's not an optical illusion, it looks like the wire was erased a bit when it shouldn't have been. Same goes with the edge of the wire in the upper-left quadrant. No offense meant to the photographer. For all I know he may not be intending for his images to be nominated here, so the work he does produce is way more than 'good enough' for their humble use in the encyclopedia. If those issues can either be explained or fixed, I'd be happy to support. upstate NYer 18:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking it may be shadows, but I'll ask him. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He says he thinks it was shadows; he has taken another picture, which may as well be nominated separately later. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]