Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image-Ass 2.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Female Buttocks
- Reason
- I am nominating this photograph because it is stunning, sexy, and very important. It has high scientific importance because it accurately depicts a portion of human anatomy. All in all, this picture is aesthetically pleasing to the eye. It is definitely one of Wikipedia's best images.
- Articles this image appears in
- Buttocks, Gluteal cleft
- Creator
- Titus36
- Support as nominator — Chickitychina`1`1 00:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too small and seems kind of overexposed (in the photographic sense). howcheng {chat} 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Beautiful but I like them larger (the pics) - Alvesgaspar 01:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Painful Oppose - I would love to support this, but the pic is just too small.Chris H 01:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- And here I thought looking for comparables on Flickr might actually be a pleasurable task. Not so.... ~ trialsanderrors 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- That buttocks is the perfect buttocks...what's up with all of the opposes? Chickitychina`1`1 03:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Too small, art photo instead of more real (that color... is not natural). Possibly because it's atypical of buttocks. I think you may be mixing up encyclopedic and appealing. You may find this picture to be appealing but that does not mean it is the best representation of buttocks. I'd be more apt to vote for it if it was representing erotica. (but it's still too small). gren グレン 07:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- That buttocks is the perfect buttocks...what's up with all of the opposes? Chickitychina`1`1 03:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, something tells me that the skin color is not natural.... I think it's too much of an art photo rather than representing buttocks well. It's too small. Rather unrelated... it could probably use a better title... gren グレン 06:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - people don't have skin the colour of clay or china Booksworm Talk to me! 16:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right, but it is an excellent example of high key photography. So it's just in the wrong articles. --Dschwen 18:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Even though Wikipedia is not censored, I don´t think this would be a good idea for a feautured article which could appear at the main-page. ♠Tom@sBat 21:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too unnatural and gauzy; probably photoshopped; the vulva seems to have gone AWOL; I might vote for it in a "soft-focus white-bread erotica" article, but certainly not for buttocks. --TotoBaggins 23:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose If this was billed as an artistic shot I would support wholeheartedly however since this is being presented as a scientific shot of the human buttocks the skin color alone somewhat disqualifies it, although most nominations should be based on the image itself and not the description in this case I think the context in which it's described is relevant. Cat-five - talk 06:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)- Weak Oppose I agree with TotoBaggins, the vulva has gone AWOL. Wikipediarules2221 06:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- oppose - tilted seriously though, oppose per enc issues outlined above. I'd support if it illustrated erotica. Debivort 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dude (I know you're not being serious but) that's human anatomy. She has her weight more on one foot. —Pengo 00:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - And in case this image has anyone else feeling that buttocks are tepid indeed, I submit for your consideration: BUTTOCKS. --TotoBaggins 02:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Wrong colours, not natural. Also i don't think it is tilted, i thinks she's just got her left left forward, look at the waist. Chris_huhtalk 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy closed - obviously fails criteria #6 and #10, no chance of promotion. And no, this isn't censorship :-) --YFB ¿ 08:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
