Support. What a stupid tie.
Cacophony (
talk) 00:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is not nearly as good as the Obama pic below. I hope the voters here realize the difference between FPC and the Presidential Election (whicht does not start until November by the way...). --
Dschwen 04:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comparing this picture to another FPC isn't a legitimate reason to oppose. The timing of the presidential election is also irrelevant to this particular image meeting the featured picture criteria. What are the shortcomings of this image as they relate to the
featured picture criteria? Per
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#How_to_comment: All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that can be addressed.Cacophony (
talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comparing to another FPC is a perfectly legitimate reason. Please review the FP criteria and check out point 3, which is comparative as well. To determine if a picture is among Wikipedia's best you have to compare to other works. --
Dschwen 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose, this isn't particularly better than most of the politician images.
grenグレン 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Despite obvious encyclopedic value, this is neither better nor worse than many other formal portraits. No partisan statement is implied in this vote.
DurovaCharge! 07:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Criterion 3: is among Wikipedia's best work. This is competent formal portrait photography. What sets this apart is the importance of the subject, and maybe that's enough for some Wikipedians. Yet it's also composed in a style that has been done equally well many times over. Compare to
Image:Javier Solana (2007).jpg, that shows a statesman at work in a less studied moment.
DurovaCharge! 03:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm not finding any reasons. Please elaborate.
Cacophony (
talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
It's just rather run-of-the-mill. Perfectly serviceable portrait, but nothing to get that excited about. I will admit though, it's certainly a better image than the rather poor-quality example for Barack Obama below that everyone seems to think is so great. --
Grandpafootsoldier (
talk) 06:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose per other opposes; good portrait, but no wow. --
Janke |
Talk 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Nothing wrong in this picture and looks real FP material. Support as per nom. 13:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gppande (
talk •
contribs)
Oppose per Durova, although I think that this is a better portrait than the Obama one. Nonetheless, I don't like the way the subject's jacket blends into the background, which makes him look like a floating head and tie.
Spikebrennan (
talk) 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Decent portrait but doesn't strike me as anything with the "wow" required--much like all of our other politician photos. I don't like how he looks disembodied either...
Mangostar (
talk) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 08:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. What a stupid tie.
Cacophony (
talk) 00:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is not nearly as good as the Obama pic below. I hope the voters here realize the difference between FPC and the Presidential Election (whicht does not start until November by the way...). --
Dschwen 04:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comparing this picture to another FPC isn't a legitimate reason to oppose. The timing of the presidential election is also irrelevant to this particular image meeting the featured picture criteria. What are the shortcomings of this image as they relate to the
featured picture criteria? Per
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#How_to_comment: All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that can be addressed.Cacophony (
talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comparing to another FPC is a perfectly legitimate reason. Please review the FP criteria and check out point 3, which is comparative as well. To determine if a picture is among Wikipedia's best you have to compare to other works. --
Dschwen 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose, this isn't particularly better than most of the politician images.
grenグレン 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Despite obvious encyclopedic value, this is neither better nor worse than many other formal portraits. No partisan statement is implied in this vote.
DurovaCharge! 07:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Criterion 3: is among Wikipedia's best work. This is competent formal portrait photography. What sets this apart is the importance of the subject, and maybe that's enough for some Wikipedians. Yet it's also composed in a style that has been done equally well many times over. Compare to
Image:Javier Solana (2007).jpg, that shows a statesman at work in a less studied moment.
DurovaCharge! 03:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm not finding any reasons. Please elaborate.
Cacophony (
talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
It's just rather run-of-the-mill. Perfectly serviceable portrait, but nothing to get that excited about. I will admit though, it's certainly a better image than the rather poor-quality example for Barack Obama below that everyone seems to think is so great. --
Grandpafootsoldier (
talk) 06:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose per other opposes; good portrait, but no wow. --
Janke |
Talk 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Nothing wrong in this picture and looks real FP material. Support as per nom. 13:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gppande (
talk •
contribs)
Oppose per Durova, although I think that this is a better portrait than the Obama one. Nonetheless, I don't like the way the subject's jacket blends into the background, which makes him look like a floating head and tie.
Spikebrennan (
talk) 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Decent portrait but doesn't strike me as anything with the "wow" required--much like all of our other politician photos. I don't like how he looks disembodied either...
Mangostar (
talk) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 08:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)reply