Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Floodlights

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure a closeup of lights has much EV for Floodlights (sport) and it probably has almost zero EV for Lighting. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am having trouble understanding when a closeup of a subject is not of value to that subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking a wider shot showing either part of a stadium/field or most of it, to illustrate how the lights are used. A closeup doesn't put any context to their use, it's just a light. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are plenty such images in the articles already.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - And the reason you think this picture has more EV over those? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        In the article this shows what one type looks like. The image that follows it shows what they do. It is pretty much the same reason a closeup of a bird or a mushroom has EV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of the images on Floodlights (sports) this seems to be the best one, and the quality of the photo itself is pretty good. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]