Well, if this isn't the perfect picture of a cowboy, then there's no such thing! It's used on the page
cowboy. -
Dmcdevit 04:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nominate and support. -
Dmcdevit 04:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -Meh. Doesn't strike me as "striking, shocking, impressive, titillating or fascinating". --
Deglr6328 07:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well… oppose. I agree, this one doesn't really make my jaw drop. It takes more than just any good picture to make it into the featured,
IMHO. It's also far to low-res, I would say.
Jonas Olson 19:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - it doesn't have to be all the features Deglr mentions so I'll settle for Fascinating. Blurry backbround sets off the cowboy beautifully -
Adrian Pingstone 09:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Not much of a cowboy (I live in an Australian country town so I have harsh standards) and surely there are photos taken more recently (there must have been some since 1887) which have a higher image quality. --
Fir0002 06:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support. i grew up in an american country town so i too have high standards. its a great pic and representative of the cowboys of the times
Cavebear42 18:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I grew up in an English industrial city, so I have no standards whatsoever ;-) Nevertheless, I would have thought the
cowboy article would be better served by a more modern photo. There are still plenty of authentic, horse-riding, cowboys around, particularly in Latin America. --
Solipsist 11:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. I like the face of the cowboy, and the details. I don't think a modern cowboy will look the same.--
Bernard Helmstetter 12:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. I like the details too. Remember that a modern picture, while being at a higher resolution, would be of a modern cowboy...
Enochlau 14:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, if this isn't the perfect picture of a cowboy, then there's no such thing! It's used on the page
cowboy. -
Dmcdevit 04:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nominate and support. -
Dmcdevit 04:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -Meh. Doesn't strike me as "striking, shocking, impressive, titillating or fascinating". --
Deglr6328 07:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well… oppose. I agree, this one doesn't really make my jaw drop. It takes more than just any good picture to make it into the featured,
IMHO. It's also far to low-res, I would say.
Jonas Olson 19:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - it doesn't have to be all the features Deglr mentions so I'll settle for Fascinating. Blurry backbround sets off the cowboy beautifully -
Adrian Pingstone 09:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Not much of a cowboy (I live in an Australian country town so I have harsh standards) and surely there are photos taken more recently (there must have been some since 1887) which have a higher image quality. --
Fir0002 06:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support. i grew up in an american country town so i too have high standards. its a great pic and representative of the cowboys of the times
Cavebear42 18:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I grew up in an English industrial city, so I have no standards whatsoever ;-) Nevertheless, I would have thought the
cowboy article would be better served by a more modern photo. There are still plenty of authentic, horse-riding, cowboys around, particularly in Latin America. --
Solipsist 11:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. I like the face of the cowboy, and the details. I don't think a modern cowboy will look the same.--
Bernard Helmstetter 12:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. I like the details too. Remember that a modern picture, while being at a higher resolution, would be of a modern cowboy...
Enochlau 14:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)