Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/KC Stadium at night

KC Stadium at night



 * Reason:I feel that this picture meets all the featured picture criteria. It is a well taken photo that adds to the articles it is used in and, personally, I find it stiring and think it deserves to be featured.
 * Articles this image appears in:Kingston-Upon-Hull, KC Stadium, Hull FC & Hull City A.F.C.
 * Creator:Yorkshire Forward


 * Support as nominator &mdash; ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can someone confirm the suitability of this image's licence, please? Pstuart84 Talk 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have left a note on the user who uploaded it's talk page. I'll look into it though. ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 22:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It could be me being mega dim but I can't actually find the picture on the website - the link definitely works but I have no idea what it's used for on the site... ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No license. http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/www/imagebank.asp has no mention of usage restrictions or otherwise. ed g2s &bull; talk 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Copyright: If you want to re-use or reproduce the publications or information provided by Yorkshire Forward from a request under the Freedom of Information Act (for example, commercially or for circulation to third parties) you may need to apply for a copyright licence." Chris H 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dusty, maybe even a stray hair, and the lights are blurred and blown.--HereToHelp 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the blown flood light isn't ideal. Is there anything that can be done about that? ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Close nomination due to incorrect license. ed g2s &bull; talk 10:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I recieved an email from the website operators saying "All images on our Image Bank are copyright and cost free." - I have no idea what licence, specifically, this would transfer to but it sounds like the image is fair game. ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's the wrong interpretation of "free". MER-C 12:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, if they are "copyright free" then we can use them. He didn't say "copyrighted but cost free". ed g2s &bull; talk 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have sent an email to clarify that the image is copyright free, and to see if they have a higher resolution version of the picture. Hopefully the copyright issue will be cleared up soon. ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep - just had an email confirming all the images in the image bank could be used for comercial purposes and to make derivative works. So that's the copyright issue cleared up I think. ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you forward that e-mail to the permissions queu of OTRS? I think it's permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org. Mak (talk)  16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done and done. ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Permission has been approved. Yonatan talk 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: a great picture that really stands out. --TFoxton 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blown highlights, doesn't even show that much of the stadium. ~ trialsanderrors 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Attractive photograph highlighting one of the most visually impressive stadiums in the UK. The contrast between the stadium's looks, and the unattractive surroundings, impresses me somewhat. NeilSenna 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poor, oversharpened scan of a nice enough, high definition pic. Would look miles better either downsampled to 2000px or (ideally) re-scanned. mikaultalk 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per mikaul. 8thstar 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)