Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brick

A brick in a wall

 * Reason:Simple and detailed. It conveys notion of a brick in a way words cannot represent.
 * Articles this image appears in:Brick
 * Creator:Thegreenj

MER-C 03:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator &mdash; J      Are you green?  21:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Common yet enc subject, done very well. Some might whine that it doesn't show context, but I think there is room for both a macro and a wide shot.--HereToHelp 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support: It's an extremely good image, but perhaps a somewhat uncompelling one, due to how common the subject is. Still, it seems to by and large meet Featured Picture criteria (with the "compelling" criteria in slight doubt, though for a picture of a brick...), and it's a very strong technical image. Caption is confusing, though ("stretcher brick"?) Adam Cuerden talk 23:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Long side facing out. Please feel free to edit the caption in any way to make it clearer. J      Are you green?  23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose A brick has six faces, this photo shows only one. Insufficient. Chicago god 23:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ehrm... How do you propose showing all faces of an object? I'm not Picasso! :) J      Are you green?  23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He was not asking for all six faces, just stating that showing only one is insufficient. --Dschwen 10:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a brick wall...and not a very encyclopedic pic of a brick wall, since only a single brick in the wall is fully shown. It's not like the fruit and veggie pics that usually pass the FPC process. The pic would be much more encyclopedic if there was a single brick by itself and a brick broken in half next to it in order to show its contents (probably more red stuff, but maybe not). I'm not saying that it isn't a great shot, but that it doesn't seem like a whole mess of effort was made to prepare and take a shot of a subject well under your control. Also, as others have mentioned, it's a very common and uninspiring subject matter...which places it at a great disadvantage compared to other more interesting pics. For example, a brilliant pic of a paper clip would pale in comparison to a pic by the Hubble. So, I guess I'm opposing the pic on the the weak encyclopedicality and the blandness. Sorry. Jumping   cheese  03:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, and I do not disagree with any of your statements concerning the mundanenss of a brick. However, I cannot quite see what you are pushing for. The purpose of the picture is, quite simply, to show a brick, as most people find one. True, I could smash a brick open (well, on second thought I probably couldn't!) and put in on a white surface next to a whole brick. But, what exactly does that show? People don't identify bricks by their insides, as a person might do with a fruit. Bricks serve no purpose alone, or broken. The purpose of the photograph is to provide the viewer with the texure and detail that only that picture could bring. It isn't an dissection of a brick. It's just one common, arbitrary brick where it should be found. It's a stretch to make this comparison, but I wouldn't call this unencyclopedic for not showing the whole face. It's a picture of an iris, just as this is a picture of a brick. If I had wanted to caputure the whole wall, I would have done that, which, for a lack of texture, is much less interesting than one brick. J      Are you green?  03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanxs for the reply! I guess I'm saying that for a subject as common as a brick to be as encyclopedic as a pic of an exotic and rare bird, there needs to be more done to the subject. Like how the common fruit are cut open for FP, the pic can be more encyclopedic if it showed several types of bricks or different angles of the brick (in retrospect, cutting open a brick isn't a very good idea). Jumping   cheese  22:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think it would be much more illustrative/encyclopedic to show the edge of a brick wall. The straight on view lacks the depth required to fully comprehend what a brick looks like (it only shows 2 dimensions).  I don't agree with the notion that it should be split like the fruits and veggies because the inside of a brick looks identical to the outside, and it really needs to show mortar around it.  I also don't care for the lack of symmetry on this composition.  Cacophony 07:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose I guess some subjects just wern't meant to have a featured picture. Paperclip, pencil, brick wall, brick, wall. There just arn't that interesting to look at. Plus I feel a bit like looking at a test chart picture. Blowing it up to full size to see how sharp it is. It is very sharp and has nice lighting I just dont think it merits featured status. Also, not to worry, with your new DSLR you shouldn't have any problems getting some featured pictures, its just a matter of time. -Fcb981 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)