Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bratislava New Year Fireworks.jpg

Bratislava New Year Fireworks

 * Reason: In my opinion a very nice picture.


 * Articles this image appears in: Fireworks
 * Creator: Ondrejk

regards, —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support reasons see above —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose does not meet criteria #5. Cacophony (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: No it does regards, —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 03:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding it. Maybe next time you should do that *before* you nominate it.  After all, it dosen't add value to an article if it does not appear in an article.  Cacophony (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We usually don't care about that criteria.. usually some time during the process if people support it, then it's added to the article as a matter of course before the final promotion. -- ⁪ffroth 07:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, speak for yourself. That's an automatic oppose for mine (or more to the point, an ineligible nomination). It must be in an article before nomination, and also be pretty certain of staying there. --jjron (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pah, it's pointless to "conditionally support pending addition to the article" since it's 100% sure that someone will add it at some point before promotion -- ⁪ffroth 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, that would be a pointless vote, which is why it's an automatic oppose. Cacophony is 100% correct - if it's not in an article it's an automatic fail on Criterion 5. It should not even be considered for nomination if it's not in an article. --jjron (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Opppose - sides of fireworks are cut off. -Halo (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, composition. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 21:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't add anything to the article it's in-- there are several better pictures in the article. I've taken ones like these, or even better, with my camera at college. Clegs (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are a dozen or so pictures of fireworks in that article, and there's absolutely nothing to make this one stand out above the rest. The composition is not of featured quality, and the fireworks depicted are not particularly spectacular; as Clegs stated, there are better images in the article. -- Mike (Kicking222) 08:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing unique about either. It could be fireworks anywhere. Furmanj (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)