Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Playing Card

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Playing Card[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2010 at 12:32:56 (UTC)

File:REPLACE THIS WITH THE NEW FILENAME
Edit1 - Edit1. Rotated image.
Reason
High EV for article illustrating cards, Very accurate image, great resolution and detail. I can't see a better image coming about and feel this is FP-worthy.
Articles in which this image appears
Playing Card, United States Playing Card Company
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator
Asimzb
  • Support as nominator --JFitch (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we're going to feature this, I'd really want to see some evidence that the design is public domain. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as i am aware they are PD. The reason is becasue the classic Bicycle back design was in use in the 19th century which means according to US copyright law...if there ever was a copyright registered for these cards, the copyright has passed into the public domain due to expiration of copyright. This is just as I understand it however. JFitch (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the design was used on published cards in the US in the 19th century, the design is definitely PD, and a note on the image page would be good. Not a template, just a note. J Milburn (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering about the logo (it has a little copyright circle next to it...), but Support if free. --I'ḏ♥One 14:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a registered trademark symbol, the logo is uncopyrightable. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same difference, my concern if this is ok since it's a brand. --I'ḏ♥One 18:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find the composition of this image awkward. While I appreciate the effort to make the angles of the outermost cards equal and balance it, the way that the backwards card goes directly into the Jack makes the whole image feel like it's sliding to the left as a result of the lengthy line. Cowtowner (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rats, I hate the oppose because I'm a card player, but it feels too manipulated. The Ace is casting too large of a shadow to be legit, at least it's apocryphal. Gut Monk (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats a natural shadow caused by the off angle lighting and the way the cards lift a little when placed like this. JFitch (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I actually wanted to support this, but it's extremely redoable, and what Cowturner says about the composition is correct. J Milburn (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • after these comments I actually tried rotating, reframing, recomposing the same shot, and this is by far the most natural looking. The more you look at it technically you think it's wrong because it's leaning, but thats actually how we are used to seeing cards, everything else I tried looked wrong. JFitch (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've uploaded an edit showing just the simples rotation in order to line things up across the top. JFitch (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not what I was meaning. I think this would look best if you had the fan as it is, with the lone card slightly separated, paralell to the edge of the image. J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's missing the 10... the "standard" way to present cards is 10-A unless you show all four suits of one value card... gazhiley.co.uk 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose There just isn’t anything *special* enough about this to elicit a “stop, stare & click” reaction IMO. Greg L (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like the composition and this picture is superior to all our other illustrations, of playing cards, I have seen. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my link for IMO better ways to present cards... But maybe that's just my opinion... gazhiley.co.uk 22:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't think about that before. But now once you said it, it really looks weird without a number card. P. S. Burton (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Needs a ten. And the image quality is not very good; check the upper left. (I also dislike the pink bg.) Maedin\talk 18:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Playing_Card&oldid=1136093136"