Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/S65

S65


The $170,000 S65 AMG is the rarest vehicle currently offered by Mercedes-Benz, and when I heard there was actually one in Greenwich, I went over with my Sony Cybershot digital camera on a clear day in March. I took several photos, and I feel this one turned out the best. I'm often disappointed with the size, focus and quality of the automotive photographs on Wikipedia, and I think this one stands out because it makes (I believe) a good use of angle, color and lighting. It appears on the pages Aufrecht Melcher Grossaspach and Mercedes-Benz S-Class, and I think it really adds to them. - Jagvar 14:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. - Jagvar 14:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - doesn't cut the mustard. Lupin 14:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - too much from a rear angle, more on the three quarters would be better - Adrian Pingstone 14:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Angle obscures most of the car's sides. Mgm|(talk) 10:56, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Reasons stated above, cluttered background. Sango  123  18:20, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Can hardly see the car, this photo doesn't make it look special. Bad background. --Silversmith 23:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a car in a parking lot. Dsmdgold 14:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Low res car park snapshot --Fir0002 07:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * These last two comments are very unfair to the uploader who may never contribute here again. It's not relevant where it was taken. We are just judging whether it's a first class pic of that car. It could well have succeeded with a better angle and in a less used car park - Adrian Pingstone 11:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * comment. i see what adrian is saying and the comments here can often be more harsh than most would like.  however, this is indeed a car in a parking lot and is indeed a low res pic of a parked car.  the statements were true and fair though it could be debated if they were nice.  we make a habit of only voting pics into fp that are extreamly high res and therefore show an uncommon evel of detail.  while i dont want to speak for these 2 indiviguals, i can tell you that it is VERY unlikly that i would ever vote for any picture of any car in any parking lot.  cars are just plain uninteresting.  maybe the oscar meyer wienie mobile would have a chance buta sedan is a sedan and not that interesting unless you are REALLY into cars.  If I was a _HUGE_ pencil fan and took a pic of a rare pencil made from some obscure factory last month, it would still be a picture of a pencil and not interesting to the rest of the world. Cavebear42 16:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was too telegraphic in my comments, if so I apologize. I'll expand. The angle of the car and the cluttered background combine to make this a ho-hum picture of just another car in parking lot.  There is no way to tell that there is anything specially about this car.  I certainly think that it is possible to get a good picture of a car, and I'm not a car guy, it's just that thisn't one.  I think that any subject can be featured, but where the picture is taken is entirely relevant as to wether or not the picture is a first class picture. Dsmdgold 20:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm in the same boat as Dsmdgold, and I didn't mean anything personal to the photographer, and so if any offence was taken I apologize. I agree with Dsmdgold entirely in his above statements. I do think that car photos can easily make FP, Some thing such as this or this or this or even this maybe too high an expectation, but cars can be spectacular subjects IMO.
 * When I first looked at it, it just appears to be another ordinary car in an ordinary car park. Uninteresting is what I'm getting at. You can't see what a spectactular car it actually is. And altough this photo would be a great asset to its page, if a non wikipedian was browsing through and saw that this photo was a FP, I'm pretty sure his reaction would be "I could take a photo like that in a car park" and would consequently lower is opinion of wiki's FP (IMO). Now I'll apologize in case this comment is taken the wrong way :-) --Fir0002 04:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Neutral: I'm not really a car person, but I was wondering if it would be possible to expand a little on the picture's caption; I for one would like to know why the car is rare without reading the article. TomStar81 21:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your honest opinions and your sincerity, and I will continue to submit photos as I become a more experienced photographer. I'm sure a more dramatic angle and a cleaner background would have improved this image. If I ever find an S65 again, I will be sure to try a different photographic approach. Jagvar 00:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit!--Fir0002 04:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you were wanting to know more about the car, read on, and if not, disregard. Fewer than 500 worldwide will ever be produced. The S65 is the fastest four-door sedan ever built. It is powered by a 6.0-liter V-12. It produces 604 hp and goes from 0-60 mph in just 4 seconds! The particular car pictured is, according to the dealership, the first S65 ever to arrive in the state of Connecticut. Jagvar 00:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'm Impressed. With Statistics like that it is easy to see why you called this car "...the rarest vehicle currently offered by Mercedes-Benz...". While it does not appear that this picture will become featured, I am impressed with your knowlage of the car and its specs. Glad to have you aboard! TomStar81 07:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I rather see a side view of the car rather than its rear-end. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This link is Broken 02:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)