Oppose staged photo that reveals nothing about the subject's personality or occupation for which is notable. No significant EV. --
ELEKHHT 00:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - It does reveal it alright, he is in fashion. Article say "Indian fashion choreographer, contest trainer and model "... I could tell imediatelly the guy has style and elegance, probably a filmstar or fashion.
The Fab Five would have giving him a high score... :) about EV, it's a lead pic... more than this one can't ask for.
Hafspajen (
talk) 01:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)reply
How so? Is the physical appearance of a subject not of value in and of itself? —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 16:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
ELEKHH &
Alborzagros, the article is about a person and the photograph is of that person. I don't think we can strictly illustrate the profession of the person with a photograph unless he is an athlete, performer etc..
Hafspajen also explained it in a better way. You may kindly have a look at
this, it does not show that he is the President but a good portrait, the same way this nomination was made. Hope you are convinced and would reconsider your vote. DreamSparrowChat 18:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I consistently opposed FPC images like this (
example), not only because of lack of EV but also because I think they are not entirely consistent with
WP:NPOV. The same way we don't feature articles with promotional text, we shouldn't feature promotional staged images. The Obama example (not promoted) is marginally better as at least has the flag in the background providing some context. --
ELEKHHT 22:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
ELEKHH, you mean to say
this is marginally better because of the flag background ? Then how would you consider these
1,
2,
3,
4,
5, are they having significant EV ? My only concern is, its very difficult to get a good portrait of these kind of people since they will be covered with a lot of people when they are in a public meeting, at least the effort we put would be considered right ? DreamSparrowChat 05:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Is their notability simply a product of their persona, or of society's appreciation of them? If the second, than is it their appearance in the public sphere, or a staged portrait more relevant? Are they
icons, or humans with qualities appreciated by the public? -
ELEKHHT 13:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)reply
But I feel the picture meeting all the criteria. Lets see what others think : DreamSparrowChat 14:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support -- No problem with interest. Good pic.
Ayesha23 (
talk) 07:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose staged photo that reveals nothing about the subject's personality or occupation for which is notable. No significant EV. --
ELEKHHT 00:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - It does reveal it alright, he is in fashion. Article say "Indian fashion choreographer, contest trainer and model "... I could tell imediatelly the guy has style and elegance, probably a filmstar or fashion.
The Fab Five would have giving him a high score... :) about EV, it's a lead pic... more than this one can't ask for.
Hafspajen (
talk) 01:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)reply
How so? Is the physical appearance of a subject not of value in and of itself? —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 16:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
ELEKHH &
Alborzagros, the article is about a person and the photograph is of that person. I don't think we can strictly illustrate the profession of the person with a photograph unless he is an athlete, performer etc..
Hafspajen also explained it in a better way. You may kindly have a look at
this, it does not show that he is the President but a good portrait, the same way this nomination was made. Hope you are convinced and would reconsider your vote. DreamSparrowChat 18:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I consistently opposed FPC images like this (
example), not only because of lack of EV but also because I think they are not entirely consistent with
WP:NPOV. The same way we don't feature articles with promotional text, we shouldn't feature promotional staged images. The Obama example (not promoted) is marginally better as at least has the flag in the background providing some context. --
ELEKHHT 22:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
ELEKHH, you mean to say
this is marginally better because of the flag background ? Then how would you consider these
1,
2,
3,
4,
5, are they having significant EV ? My only concern is, its very difficult to get a good portrait of these kind of people since they will be covered with a lot of people when they are in a public meeting, at least the effort we put would be considered right ? DreamSparrowChat 05:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Is their notability simply a product of their persona, or of society's appreciation of them? If the second, than is it their appearance in the public sphere, or a staged portrait more relevant? Are they
icons, or humans with qualities appreciated by the public? -
ELEKHHT 13:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)reply
But I feel the picture meeting all the criteria. Lets see what others think : DreamSparrowChat 14:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support -- No problem with interest. Good pic.
Ayesha23 (
talk) 07:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)reply