Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pioneers pin rs.svg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2011 at 15:58:24 (UTC)

Reason: I believe that the image has high encyclopedic value and represents its subject well, as it was the emblem of the group. SVG so resolution is no issue. Currently featured at Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Young Pioneer organization of the Soviet Union
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator: Emblem itself unknown, possibly from the Young Pioneer organization. Original scan by EugeneZelenko. SVG provided by Ahnode and Quibik

Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because if we allow this to be FP, then every high resolution logo of every organization with an article would qualify for FP, which could clutter this nomination page and a few FP categories. Pine^talk 21:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable. Most logos that complex that people care about are not in the public domain.©Geni 22:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent reproductions of striking, free logos of organisations, especially when the logo itself is significant, and when there's no issue of advertising (though maybe concerns about advertising would just serve to keep them off the main page...), would make good FPCs, in my opinion. That's a very small group of images. Of more concern to me are crests/coats of arms; we've promoted some of them, but it seems that almost any of them would be eligible. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like it, and I prefer it without the shadow, but I wonder why the red bars are thicker than the black bars? That doesn't appear to be the case with the pin. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, why is there the change of tone in the middle? The top half being lighter than the bottom half? J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted (very indirectly) above, this is an SVG version of a pin image. It appears that the gradient is in the original pin. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This other image reflects a gradient as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Not much I have to say about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pteronura brasiliensis (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning oppose). Where do the colours for this image come from? The colours on the pin are very different, particular in the flame section (see [1]) - the flame is more like the lighter rays below and it is all one colour whereas this gets darker towards the edges. Also, on the pin, the lighter rays are thinner than the dark ones, but here it is the other way round. Another image I found is again different ([2]). To my mind an image of an actual pin or logo has more EV than an SVG image. Polequant (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose per above, unless colours are changed or explained. I'd also still lean to an image of an actual pin or banner too (given the proliferation of the pins, I wouldn't have thought it would be too hard to find one in good condition). Polequant (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw a decent pic of a better-condition pin, but it wasn't free. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportA nice picture of something which is historically significant.Jamesrules90 (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the various concerns above. I'm ok with this in theory, but I'm really not convinced that this reproduction is completely accurate. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the flame should be more orange than the red star. Easy to change though, isn't it? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]