Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cowboy

Cowboy

American cowboy circa 1887

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 timesCavebear42 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)
• Support - Bevo 18:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +6 / -4 -- Solipsist 06:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)