Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/File:2006 Hyundai Getz SX (Australia).jpg

Hyundai Getz SX

Reason: Didn't pass FPC because it is a hyandai. But it should be fine here.
Articles this image appears in: Hyundai Getz
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why isn't it the lead image? EV is low for an image that's only in one article and not the lead image. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because someone changed it. Lead image status doesn't correlate with EV. The person that moved them around didn't offer any explanation. The lead image doesn't have strong EV since the year, model and place isn't specified (They don't have black mirrors or door handles here for example).
  - So you can change it back then? The "lead image" (generally speaking) definitely has more EV than the others in an article like this. It would be no different if the list of images on the right were actually a gallery, therefore making this image offer questionable EV.
  - It seems like you are confused about EV. Here is a chain: Gallery image= weak EV; Thumb image= some EV; Lead image= strong EV; Infobox image= strongest EV. EV gets even greater when used in multiple articles. Zoo Fari 22:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - quality is good, but I fail to see the real value of this image. It is just a car.—Chris! _ct 00:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You could easily go and say its just a bird, its just a building etc. The aim here is to illustrate articles. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty illustrative --Muhammad(talk) 20:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find it any better or worse than any of the other images in the article. howcheng {chat} 06:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Too wide-angled, takes detail away from front, and gives a somewhat distorted appearance. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]