Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/John Edwards Pittsburgh 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] John Edwards Pittsburgh 2007

Original
Original
Reason
Excellent high-resolution photograph of one of the most high-profile contemporary American politicians. Taken today. (Full disclosure: Author is my brother.)
Proposed caption
United States Presidential candidate John Edwards campaigning in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on Labor day in 2007.
Articles this image appears in
John Edwards presidential campaign, 2008, John Edwards, political campaign, oratory, Livestrong wristband
Creator
Mike Murphy (user:mikemurphy)
  • Support as nominator — brighterorange (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This photo is definitely a well-taken, colorful and high-quality one. I like that there is no political agenda, logo or anything that might call into question its neutrality... it is simply a picture of a man, just one who is a politician. However, I'm reluctant to support for featured picture at the moment, mainly because it was nominated on the same day that it was taken, and by the photographer's brother, no less. I'm not opposed to this as a featured picture, as it meats the criteria... I just want to see what others have to say about my concerns first. -- Prezboy1 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Support As per Muhammad Mahdi Karim. -- Prezboy1 18:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • comment If you're worried about a conflict of interest, it's no worse than a self-nomination. I do think it's worthy of FP status, though. — brighterorange (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support- A very good quality, high res picture. Being nominated on the same day as it was taken shows the dedication users have towards Wikipedia. You get my vote. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support There's some blurring and it'd be nice if we could see more of him, but no outstanding problems; we need more people FPs. I wouldn't vote for the man but it's a decent image. ;) (Why does it matter that it's nominated on the same day it was taken? I don't see how that affects anything.) CillaИ X♦C [dic] 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Sharp (to me) and nicely composed. It's a shame his arm is somewhat cut-off though. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 18:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Like everyone's been saying, very well composer. I especially like how prominent the Livestrong bracelet is. SingCal 18:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Yay for people FPs. I wonder we'll now see others nominated for other candidates. Debivort 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - First off, I don't find the shot all that interesting. In my book if you're going to feature a pic of a contemporary public figure (especially one as photographed as Edwards) the shot should be especially noteworthy. Second, given the fact that this guy is currently running for president, issues of neutrality should obviously be brought up. Having Edwards so prominently placed on the front page comes awfully close to political advertising in my estimation. -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it will be very hard to get a notable recent picture freely licensed. I dislike the argument "it won't suit the main page"; FP is not POTD. thegreen J Are you green? 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support it really is a great shot, but for POV sake it cant go on the main page, I know Raul654 is in charge of featured articles and has a list of some which wont see the main page so whether someone could do something similar with this (I personally dont care what goes on the main page but you know how the news likes to attack the site, just dont want the picture to cause hassle etc) --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - more like this please. The brother/photographer issue is a non-issue: most of the nominations here come from the photographers themselves. The POTD issue should be completely disregarded - if it shouldn't go on the main page, then we won't put it on the main page. We should be doing all we can to encourage more high quality photos of public figures, because we're seriously lacking in them. Stevage 07:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurring, easily reproducible (I hear he goes out in public a lot these days). --Bridgecross 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Which blurring are you referring to? Not background I assume... Debivort 15:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • His hand is slightly blurred IMHO. Not really a big deal though. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor lighting effect. It would be very easy to get a better shot.Ghelelio 14:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I really like his pose and that the flag is out-of-focus in the background. Even though this was likely not intended, this photo seems iconic and historically important (I know that it's not, that's just how it looks to me.) – sgeureka t•c 15:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Among other things, his mouth is open and he doesn't look happy. -Henry W. Schmitt 15:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Which Featured Picture Criterion does this violate?! Debivort 15:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not confuse me for a WikiRuleNazi: I don't care about WikiRules, I just don't like this photo. -Henry W. Schmitt 03:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't confused you for anything - but without a proper rationale, your vote is likely to be dismissed when determining consensus. Debivort 08:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Its a bit overly contrasty for my liking but it is a high quality portrait - something we need more of. I don't see the problem with featuring a photo of a person who is not NPOV. I know its been discussed previously and we all agreed to disagree, but seriously, we need separation here. It doesn't imply endorsement of the POV or person, just the same as featuring a motorcyclist who doesn't have the optimal safety gear. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Blown highlights on the forehead and nose, and black formless regions in the hair and on the coat. Certainly not as striking as other portrait FPs that come to mind. The lighting is pretty bad; if this was a photo of an animal under the same lighting conditions, I believe the opposes would be overwhelming. Easily reproducible, especially if the only requirement is a blurred flag in the background and a yellow rubber bracelet. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-04 19:49Z
  • Support. Striking, high quality photo that satisfies the FP criteria. And POV? Give me a break. Iorek 00:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Striking. Neutralitytalk 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Good portrait, nice light. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The lighting is actually pretty bad; if this was a photo of an animal under the same lighting conditions, I believe the opposes would be overwhelming. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-05 15:50Z
      • If we'd have to vote on a non-perfect image of an animal, there are still thousands (millions?) of other animals of the same species almost all over the world that can be photographed by anyone. But there is only this one John Edwards (who I have admittedly never heard of before this FPC), and to have a wikipedian take an IMO darn good (free) image of him is actually pretty rare, or there would be more people-FP on WP. – sgeureka t•c 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The image is easily reproduced. Just as one would go to the zoo to photograph an animal, one would go to a campaign rally to photograph a candidate. The only photos that are hard to reproduce are photographs of rare or historical events, or photographs of subjects that no longer exist. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-05 18:51Z
          • With that reasoning, any image of a creature is "easily" reproduced, and I'm not sure I agree with that. All I see on Wikipedia are tons of horrible "snapshot" people photos (or none at all), but most animal articles have photos, almost all of at least decent quality. What I mean is that most people contributing photos to WP seem to care about showcasing their pets, their babies or their own bodies, but the fewest would go to campaigns with the intent to take photos of notable people for WP. If someone takes a much better (free) photo of JE in the near future, we still have the option to defeature this image here easily. My opinion. – sgeureka t•c 19:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. 8thstar 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well-taken, nice composition and great context for a US politician. Minor tech problems don't detract from the image's value or impact, and if we are to exclude shots of people for NPOV violation we'll have no people shots at all. It's an unavoidable fact of life that notable people are often the subject of controversy of some kind, and NPOV depends entirely on the context in which the image is used. mikaultalk 15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It becomes an issue when those voting on FPC have strong opinions (negative or positive) regarding the subject of the image. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-05 15:58Z
      • I wonder what percent of supporters are liberal. 8thstar 22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
        • As long as they can justify their supports, does it really matter? thegreen J Are you green? 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
        • 8th - what's your take on the connection between your succinct oppose vote and conservative beliefs? Maybe we should all just assume good faith eh? Debivort 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
          • As I said, some of the justifications seem bogus, such as the lighting being good when in fact it is bad. For an image that is so easily reproduced, it really can't have any obvious flaws if it's to become an FP, but it does. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-06 01:45Z
  • Weak support Regardless of the main page question, this is a fine image in many respects. My only concern are the couple of blown highlights and the fact that his face is just dark enough, due to lighting, that there's some grain at full resolution. These are fairly minor, even at highest resolution, though, and the composition is perfect. It's not easy to take a picture like this. -Harmil 07:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose A similar image of a candidate from a previous election—one who isn't running for anything now—would put to rest the objectivity concerns while conveying the same feel. (Better lighting couldn't hurt.) DrVerlucci 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I think the objectivity concerns are only with its possible inclusion on the main page. But WP:FP isn't the same as WP:POTD... that is, we're not trying to select an image of any old presidential candidate for POTD, we're trying to decide whether this image is one of the best pictures of a person on Wikipedia. — brighterorange (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support It's ok --Kryobot 18:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's some really weird graininess on the side of his face and neck, almost to the point of posterization. Not one of our best, I think. Matt Deres 21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, a good portrait of a relevant subject Jellocube27 15:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, even though I am not a fan of John Edwards, this is a very nice image that really caught my eye and shows its subject well.--Southern Texas 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as a striking photograph of a current politician. Not perfect, but I like to encourage this type of go-out-and-get-it contribution. I have added it to the articles political campaign (which had nothing this good) and oratory (which had no images at all). --Dhartung | Talk 09:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, nice, hi quality picture. Good composition with the flag in the background. And it's good to add variety too, rather than the usual plants and insects etc. Also, who cares who took the picture or nominated it or whatever. If it's FP quality, it should be featured. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Me likey --Central Powers 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
User has only 6 edits - four of which are on FPC the other two on his userpage --Fir0002 22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:John Edwards Pittsburgh 2007.jpg MER-C 10:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)