Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bananagrams

Bananagrams
Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 04:46:38 (UTC)
 * Reason:High resolution and EV. Attractive image that helps readers better understand the game's presentation.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Bananagrams
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
 * Creator:Evan-Amos


 * Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; never played it or heard of it, but this looks like a solid illustration. Some may be critical of the cream tiles on the white background, but other backgrounds would have created problems with other parts of the image, or been distracting. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; really a lovely photograph.126.109.231.71 (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to sign in to vote. Anonymous votes are generally disregarded. O.J. (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Generally disregard' it if it pleases you.126.109.231.71 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so in practical terms "always disregarded" if you'd prefer. Opinions may be considered (which is the 'generally bit'), but in terms of "!vote counting" they're not included. Not an argument; just the way it's done. --jjron (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - image is overexposed...  Nik the  stoned  09:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No it's not. When you take a picture of a bright yellow object with a bunch of small light cream objects on a white background, the histogram will necessarily be to the right. But if you were to actually look at the bananas and tiles, you will see there's not even blown highlighting. The exposure is perfect. Clegs (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't just look at the histogram but also checked out some of the colour values and found many of the reds to be at or very close to 255; the green as well, for that matter.  Nik the  stoned  11:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just ridiculous. If the exposure looks great to the naked eye (which it does), what does it matter if some of the reds are or are not close to 255?? The exposure is without a doubt perfect. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seemed overly light, so I checked the various histograms; I don't really feel that's ridiculous.  Nik the  stoned  09:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Well done technically, and a very fun subject. Clegs (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose Needs a better caption. It's not informative enough. Dusty777 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? It's very informative as it appears in the article. The caption sufficiently explains what we're seeing.126.109.231.71 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, caption expanded on here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crisco. IP, if this picture is going to appear on the main page of Wikipedia, it needs an informative caption, so that whoever sees the picture, can get a slight knowledge of what they are looking at, without having to read through the whole article. Dusty777 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Except the captions for the main page are generally written by HowCheng from the article. The captions here are just for voters. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, caption issue on this page is oversold sometimes. It's more the caption, or rather description (and in fact the whole summary section), on the image page that we should be worried about, as that stays with image wherever it's put and that's what should be providing the full EV for wherever the image goes. The in-article captions can and do change without warning, but the image should link into the article content, which of course can also change before the image ever makes it to the mainpage. I do note the image page here is less informative than this caption. --jjron (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Phew. Well I sort of made that long-winded point then. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment/leaning weak oppose I think it would make more sense to have the letters in crossword form to show how the game is actually played. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. It's purpose is to illustrate the game supplies, and it does this perfectly well (although it would be nicer if the 'D' wasn't in the bag shadow). In response to Calliopejen, I would point out that the beginning of the game does involve having your letters spread willy-nilly in front of you :P Fallingmasonry (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Photographing white on white is hard and this does it well. I don't think the bag is over-exposed but is very brightly lit. The items have been arranged with care to show the logo and the tiles in and out of the bag. --Colin°Talk 21:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Colin. Clegs (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

--Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 7 S, 1.5 O Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)