Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/edwards: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:52, 4 January 2008

John Edwards

Reason: Image is hopelessly noisy, basically NOTHING is in focus. Way oversampled also. Half of him is coverered in razor-sharp shadows (which is the only thing sharp in this pic). The american flag in the background is barely identifiable as such- the white balance leaves its 50 (52 if you count the strangely double-image ones) blots and long smudges light and dull. The composition is terrible; he's cut off on the left and theres a giant gap between the end of his arm and the right of the image (where his fingers end nobody knows because his overexposed fingertips fade right into the grey of a flag stripe). The sinkers are: the worst-case lighting conditions and the focus on the giant blur that's probably a microphone.
Nominator: ⁪ffroth

Delist — ⁪ffroth 03:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep only been and FP for 4 months - I don't think the standards have changed significantly since it was promoted. de Bivort 03:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it should never have been promoted in the first place :[ The standards haven't changed, but the image doesn't satisfy the standards of 4 months ago. --⁪ffroth 16:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Not particularly encyclopedic and the lighting is what led me to oppose in the original nom. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-03 14:50Z
Delist Lighting is the big drawback; for a politician there must be better photos out there and plenty of chances to get a better shot. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can live with motion blur on the hands. The head is in reasonable focus. I might be inclined to delist to avoid systemic bias in the elections, but unfortunately, that's not one of our criteria. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I don't mind the out-of-focus flag background, it's a nice effect and perfectly recognizable. The entire composition is excellent. I just don't like the way the light is falling across his face. As I said in my original oppose, there should be a lot of public domain photos of candidates to choose from. --Bridgecross (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with all of the nominator's points and the exaggerated tone of them in particular. Lighting, focus and composition are perfectly fine and the rather high contrast (which amounts to the only legitimate niggle, IMO) is way less important a factor here than the power of the image itself. --mikaul^talk 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *'''Keep'''. I can live with motion blur on the hands. The head is in reasonable focus. I might be inclined to delist to avoid systemic bias in the elections, but unfortunately, that's not one of our criteria. [[User:Samsara|Samsara]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Samsara|talk]]&nbsp;<small>•</small>&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Delist''' I don't mind the out-of-focus flag background, it's a nice effect and perfectly recognizable.  The entire composition is excellent.  I just don't like the way the light is falling across his face.  As I said in my original oppose, there should be a lot of public domain photos of candidates to choose from.  --[[User:Bridgecross|Bridgecross]] ([[User talk:Bridgecross|talk]]) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' I disagree with all of the nominator's points and the exaggerated tone of them in particular. Lighting, focus and composition are perfectly fine and the rather high contrast (which  amounts to the only legitimate niggle, IMO) is way less important a factor here than the power of the image itself. --[[user:MIckStephenson|<b>mikaul</b>]][[User_talk:MIckStephenson|<sup>talk</sup>]] 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 <!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
 {{-}}