Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aktfoto

Aktfoto


This is a beautiful picture of the human body and it adds to its article, Nudity. It seems to be appropriate for younger viewers and for the Main Page because it isn't really pornography at all, just a little suggestive (better than FHM, for example)


 * Nominate and support. - Nippoo 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems too inappropriate for young viewers in my opinion, because I am one myself.  The picture is also kinda blurry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kate Moose (talk • contribs) 23:16, 7 April 2006.
 * Not all featured pictures go up on the main page and in accordance with WP:NOT along with that fact this is not a valid reason to oppose and will most likely be discounted by teh closing admin. Pegasus1138 Talk  04:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose One day we shall have a nude image on the front page. However, I'll oppose until we have one illustrating something other than nudity itself. Such a picture would have to be extremely unique or somehow very representative of nudity for me to support it; for example, I think Image:Michelangelos David.jpg is much more relevant to the article than this one. ~MDD4696 23:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all featured pictures go up on the main page and in accordance with WP:NOT along with that fact this is not a valid reason to oppose and will most likely be discounted by teh closing admin. Pegasus1138 Talk  04:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Opposing on encyclopedic value is a valid reason. Read my comment again. Also, any registered users can close FPCs, not just admins. ~MDD4696 06:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is, but I don't see how illustrating one article is a bad thing. There's no requirement that says an FP needs to illustrate more than one article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose fuzzy, clipped highlights, lacks accutance, and doesn't contribute anything specific to its article. Not a realistic FP candidate I'm afraid ~ Veledan • Talk 23:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What's accutance? ~MDD4696 23:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Aw, shoot. ~MDD4696 23:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah edit conflict. What I replied was: A specific type of sharpness. We have a good and succinct article on accutance which will explain it better than I can, but if you want more info this tutorial on unsharp masking is excellent ~ Veledan • Talk 23:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to bee picky, but it's spelled acutance. Moved the page to that, accutance now re-directs. --Janke | Talk 05:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, I didn't know. The word makes sense to me now! ~ Veledan • Talk 17:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose; fine for younger viewers, and a lovely photo, but it's just too fuzzy. Deltabeignet 02:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ack above, also due to blown highlights. However, I don't see any problems with the subject itself - totally "clean" and would even be "main page acceptable" IMO. --Janke | Talk 05:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- At the moment it is not being used in the article nudity, therefore it fails to meet the manditory requires for a featured picture canidate. TomStar81 06:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. - Nothing special. Blown highlights. Mikeo 11:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose- I don't think it's provocative/offensive enough not to be work safe, but it's nothing special either.Borisblue 17:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We don't need nudity on the front page. BWF89 01:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Obviously for an article on nudity, a nude image would be very appropriate so long as it was not sexual. Due to the way this image is positioned, I don't think it's good enough. It's more of an art photo than a nude photo. You need a simple picture of a naked person. However, for the main page (if by that, you mean, the main page of wikipedia.org), it's just nudity for the sake of nudity and has no relevance to the main page (and this is coming from a person who has absolutely no problem with nudity - it's just not a relevant picture)

Mikeo 11:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)