Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Michigan Wolverines football team entering Michigan Stadium

Michigan Wolverines football team entering Michigan Stadium
Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2010 at 00:10:21 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is a high EV image in at least two primary uses. I feel this original version should be given serious consideration.  I could do perspective correction, but so much valuable content would be lost, I don't think it is worthwhile. I will do so upon request by voters though.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Fan club 2009 Michigan Wolverines football team Michigan Marching Band Michigan Wolverines Banner David Moosman Zoltan Mesko (American football) Kevin Grady Obi Ezeh Brandon Graham (American football) Michigan Stadium
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
 * Creator:flickr user larrysphatpage


 * Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Colours look washed out to me, nothing particularly notable about the composition (off-centre, cutoff at front of frame, etc). Also, unless many of those article are screaming for images it's far too widely spread, and certainly lacks EV in its claimed highest value article Fan club (where's the fan club? Is that those three people holding the strings near the banner? (Incidentally quite poor usage in banner as well.) Should probably be removed from both those articles). --jjron (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't argue with whether it is cut off, or uncentered. It is. However, the banner represents the fan club as an example of how fan clubs show their support.  For an article that had no images, this is a fine one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be different over there but over here fan clubs do not get access to the pitch... The procession like this, including the banner is made by the club itself...  No fan is allowed to enter the pitch area unless specifically invited, so a fan club could not possibly create this banner... Gazhiley (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I am understanding your point. As I look at the picture and attempt to recall things, there are three possible groups who are actually holding the banner.  It could be members of the Michigan Marching Band, it could be cheerleaders, or it could be the Fan Club.  I don't know who it is, but know that they do this at every home game.  I have too make a few calls to figure out which group it is.  However, the Michigan Fan Club sponsors the banner.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is different then... A Fan Club in the UK would not do this - mainly as I mentioned that it's an offence to go on the pitch over here... But maybe it is different in the US. But your uncertainty as to who has actually arranged this, let alone who is holding it to me means this cannot be used in the Fan Club article... Sponsorship alone cannot be enough - they would actually need to be there holding it, and even then would need to be seen as the fan club not some random people otherwise there is no way of knowing from this picture that it has anything to do with fan clubs... Gazhiley (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the article had no images this is probably passable, but it would be an easy replace if someone actually supplies a pic that properly shows a fanclub itself. --jjron (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can not really envision what type of picture you would be talking about. Do you want to see a meeting in progress, a fan club logo or a screenshot of a webpage?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It can just be an image like this but with a better realization. Abisharan (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree that a shot like this has potential, but, as above, this one isn't quite there. J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am contemplating recomposing this by rotating, centering and cropping it above the band leader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is just a quite normal picture and nothing special. --Noebse (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the reasoning of Noebse. Greg L (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jjron, Noebse and my comments above... Gazhiley (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I disagree with the assertion of high EV: what are the specific articles where high EV is claimed??  Spikebrennan (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As an editor speaking to an audience in the illustrations department, I can tell you that although you guys have different standards, this is a high EV image from the editor side in its first two listed uses. This is a higher EV image than a logo of a fan club or a screenshot of a fan club because it shows what a fan club does.  It is clearly high EV for the team.  If you were to tell an editor to find you a picture of a fan club, this is about the optimal image.  I don't understand how you illustrators think, but it is not like the rest of the project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh please, this is far from "...about the optimal image" of a fan club. Even you have said you're not sure whether there's any representatives of the fan club even in the picture. And the only one that's suggested using "...a logo of a fan club or a screenshot of a fan club..." is you. Now, gee what could be a better picture of a fan club? Oh, I know, a photo that actually clearly shows the fan club! Once again though, despite everyone else telling you this has low EV for fan club, you insist that you're right. --jjron (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone in this case is a bunch of FPC guys who could not recognize a non-mushroom WP:FT/WP:GT if it was set as their home page. Any PR, GAC, FAC, or FLC reg would define this image as a fantastic depiction of a fan club.  I have been through this before at FAC where someone did not like me for some reason and a bunch of perfectly fine noms where getting rejected for about a year.  When you guys have finished having your fun rejecting fine noms for no reason let me know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And when you have stopped spamming articles with pictures that have a vague-at-best connection to the article in question and instead start only putting pictures in articles that they are useful in, then let me know... Gazhiley (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so a bunch of your "perfectly fine noms" got rejected at FAC for about a year, now a bunch of your "fantastic" noms are getting rejected here "for no reason" (despite the fact that we repeatedly give you copious reasons). Yet despite these coincidences you will not consider that you may, just may, be wrong about this while those telling you otherwise are right? But no, it's just because someone doesn't like you... Right, so to paraphrase your last sentence, 'when we drop our standards to zero, let you know'. We will... :-) (And wtf has featured/good topics got to do with any of this?) --jjron (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not really anything spectacular about this that moves it apart from a casual image. While the quality might be good, the subject doesn't make the cut for anything special.--Iankap99 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't you pick a better fight than that. Mycena leaiana 593 page views, Morcvhella elata 3904, 2009 Michigan Wolverines football team 11560 page views fan club 14292 page views.  Do you define special or spectacular as something no one wants to read?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe page views statistics are at all relevant. I believe Iankap was simply discussing the photo and the subject as it is depicted.  Jujutacular  T · C 21:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)