Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Clement Meadmore

Clement Meadmore

I am nominating this one because it is, in my opinion, one of Clement Meadmore's best works. This photo is also located in the Columbia University article. I took this photo and released it into the public domain.

• Nominate and support. - Haon 03:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you have a larger version? —Cryptic (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I just uploaded it. -Haon 12:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, it's a bit overexposed. Look at the concrete and grass underneath the sculpture. That and the fact it's not a particularly spectacular subject.

Oppose vote was removed, can be replaced after comments phase. Phoenix2 01:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I know that we've had the copyright status of pictures of sculptures discussed before. Can someone summarise for us the outcome? Mark¹ 00:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not striking enough to be FP.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Overexposed grass is a problem - and I've never been a fan of that kind of abstract art --Fir0002 07:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ordinary; also some parts overexposed. Enochlau 09:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think I will ever understand why people thought this kind of art was interesting in the least. --Deglr6328 00:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, neither striking nor informative for the articles it illustrates. Also has overexposure. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- TomStar81 00:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Neutrality^talk 23:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support: bold design and colourful 'photo.
• Comment I would support if it had been cleaned before the photo was taken, over-exposure can be easily fixed with a photo editor... --Wulf 20:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]