Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/WWI Causes

WWI Causes

 * Reason:I think it is a great way to think of the causes of the war and allows visual learners remember what is going on as well as classifying for others which causes were the main bonfire, which were oily rags, which was the spark etc.
 * Articles this image appears in:Causes of WWI
 * Creator:Harris Morgan that is the work of everyone that every made life in the world.

Oppose per all above. Macy's123 (review me) 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator Harris Morgan 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't really like the font much. It makes it look a bit 1970, when a somewhat earlier date would fit it better.Adam Cuerden talk 00:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'll refrain from making any comment on the quality of the image itself, but the fact that it's symbolic/metaphorical makes it more like a work of art more than a visual aid; in fact when I first saw the image preview I thought it was a political cartoon. Obviously there's no historical value, and the metaphor you're using is fairly subjective so I don't like if for enc value either. While it's clever, it doesn't do what I think a visual aid should, which is present the subject matter in as clear and straightforward a manner as possible.  Sing  Cal  01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SingCal. I thought it was a cartoon, also. Clegs (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose A political cartoon from 90 years ago might be worth consideration for historical reasons. Yet - with respect to the nominator - a modern illustration really can't carry that particular value, no matter how well done it is.  Durova Charge! 05:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Durova and others. This is basically original research and probably shouldn't be in the article.--Svetovid (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply What the hell? Have you looked at the page? It shows that all causes on the picture are valid. Sure, it doesn't call them oily rag or a stick of wood but you've upset me a bit saying it shouldn't be included at all. Gees. Harris Morgan 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Hey hey, AGF, CIVIL and all that. Don't take it personally. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I spent a lot of time pruning that picture. It won't happen again. Harris Morgan 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC).
 * The importance and order of causes can be considered original research.--Svetovid (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. --Janke | Talk 11:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - likely OR, specks on the scan at bottom left, text is aliased and stretched, white text boxes overlap illustration at points. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, firstly, I really liked this... and I went to look for what magazine it was from and to see if the resolution was high enough. But, this is original research and should not be in any article.  Sorry about that. But, I think it's very well done... gren グレン 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is, as the Egyptians would have said, a shame. Harris Morgan 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

MER-C 07:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)