Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Peter cox

Original

Reason: High visual appeal; bright, eyecatching colours and interesting textures while maintaining a professional portrait appearance. Also has high resolution, is encyclopedic, and is effectively captioned.
Proposed caption: Peter Cox, the author of more than 20 books, including You Don't Need Meat (the best-selling vegetarian book of all time), was the first chief executive of the Vegetarian Society and is now a literary agent working in London and New York.
Articles this image appears in: Peter Cox (author)
Creator: John Buckman

Support as nominator Lambyte 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm only an occasional participant in FP discussions, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I can't see that a photo portrait adds such great value to a bio article that it meets FP standards. I mean, would any article be significantly weaker for the lack of this photo? Unschool 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... no offense meant, but I don't think you do know what you're talking about - photos do add enc value to bios - how else would you know what the person looks like?

None taken. I mean, I'm asking the question seriously. If the picture is of a place, I understand the importance. If it's of a person whose looks are a subject of the article, I see the importance. I don't deny that I wish for bio articles to have pictures, I'm just saying that, if this article on Mr. Cox didn't have his picture, I would still be able to learn that which was significant about him. That's not true if the picture is of Cappadocia or of Joseph Merrick; if those articles lack appropriate illustrations, my understanding of the subject is greatly limited. I don't need to see a picture of Mr. Cox to understand why he's noteworthy. Accordingly, his picture is inherently less able to add value to the article than the other examples I've cited. Unschool 05:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it does add less value than the elephant man, but surely you could "still be able to learn that which was significant about" Cappadocia without a photo of it, or the elephant man. In all cases this is true, and in all cases photos or illustrations enhance the article. de Bivort 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I find that biographical articles without pictures are somewhat... at the lack of a better word, disappointing - it helps me visualize the subject I'm reading about, personalize him\her - without the picture, the only thing there is a bunch of text, and I find it difficult to contextualize that to a human being - maybe that's just me. On picture merits themselves, I find that the technical merits don't quite cut it, and that crop diverts a lot from any value it might have. I , of course, refrain from voting as IP's have no suffrage. --84.90.46.116 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with this anon's sentiment—that is, that I too am disappointed by biographical articles that lack a picture. It's only natural to want to know what the subject of the article looks like. But what I'm saying is that a bio article without a picture is not hurt as much as would be many other articles lacking a picture. I completely disagree with Bivort above when he says that you could learn all that is significant about Cappadocia without a picture. An article that is actually long enough to describe Cappadocia well enough for me to visualize what the place looks like would be an article far too long and too boring to hold the attention of even one reader in a hundred. In such a case, the picture almost makes the article. That's not true of an article about Mr. Cox or most people. An article without his picture will perhaps disappoint, but I will still leave it with the knowledge that one would expect an encyclopedia to impart on the subject. Not likely with an article on The Elephant Man. Unschool 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That does make sense - an article about a person whose looks are not the key to, but rather the acts taken by said person, can function without a picture - while when speaking of a subject like Cappadocia a pictureless article will most likely fail in catching any attention. Of course I still find that it's much easier to get interested in a biography with a good picture to open it, but it isn't made or broken by the photo itself. --84.90.46.116 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - washed out, grainy at full rez, subject is cut off. de Bivort 04:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose the subject is cut off at the top. --Malachirality 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Malachirality- it makes the image look a lot less professional/encyclopedic. J Milburn 12:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with Unschool's sentiment. It has no "wow" factor, and does not make me want to learn more about this subject (in fact, I didn't even click on the article). There certainly *are* portraits that make me want to learn more (like today's FP of William T. Sherman or the one illustrating Benoît Mandelbrot), but things like this and some of the recent portraits of modern people are excellently enc., but not up to the FP standard of "among Wikipedia's best work" in my opinion. --Sean 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose due to colour posterisation and lack of anything compelling, per TotoBaggins. The crop doesn't bother me at all, I often shoot portraits this way... --mikaul^talk 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The right side(looking at the picture) of his face is way too bright. NyyDave 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)