Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Beth Shak

Beth Shak
Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 22:21:51 (UTC)
 * Reason:This high-quality image of professional poker player Beth Shak has been donated to the Wikimedia Foundation by Douglas Sonders, and (I believe) was handled through the OTRS by user The Rambling Man.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Beth Shak (lead image)
 * FP category for this image:People/Others
 * Creator:Douglas Saunders

Comment: although I'm not opposed to photographs of people not doing the things for which they are known, the promotional nature, stance and composition doen't lend themselves to it being a clear portrait of the person. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 22:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support There hasn't been something like this for a while (although slight crop may be warranted). Brandmeistertalk  08:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Low EV as I wouldn't guess she's notable as a poker player from this image. If there would be a joker sticking out somewhere... Also staged images are non-neutral, but rather promotional. -- ELEKHHT 11:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Low EV.  As Ms. Shak is not an interior decorator, far too much of this shot is occupied by a tastefully-appointed apartment; as Elekhh notes, this image's composition does nothing to link Ms. Shak to poker.  While on a personal level I don't mind looking at photographs of women with pretty bodies, this image could be of any generic glamour model&mdash;its EV is harmed by the way that it minimizes her face against so much pleasant-but-extraneous matter.  Truth be told, this image is high-enough resolution that there's a not-too-bad (featured-quality resolution, but not featured-quality composition) head-and-shoulders crop that would probably be better from an EV standpoint; I've uploaded such a crop for comparison but not voting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the image does seem promotional and unrelated to poker, but it wouldn't be out of place in the collection of existing Featured Pictures at Featured_pictures/People/Entertainment, so I don't feel there is sufficient grounds for an oppose on the basis insufficient EV or the promotional pose. Someone is welcome to do a D&R later with a photo of her playing poker. Pine✉ 07:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support High quality portrait image. If she was only a poker player then I probably wouldn't support for the reasons above (would be better to have some kind of context or a more neutral/natural candid shot) - however per the article, she is also a fashion designer (women's shoes in particular) and this justifies the glamour photo IMO --Fir0002 10:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose She is not a model, so zero EV. Just another picture with boring background (is this a fridge next to her?). Also it is rather promotional.-- GoP T C N 13:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We have several promoted photographs of people that are portraits rather than them doing the thing(s) for which they are famous (one example). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the fame of the subject may change the criteria slightly. Sammy Davis Jr is unquestionably a notable figure. Beth Shak isn't, and interest in her should be related to her poker playing, not her (provocative, in the case of this photo) appearance or her lifestyle. robo (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is great to get high-quality full-resolution professional photographs. But, as noted at Commons, this is surely not the best photo taken during that shoot: her left foot is off the ground and her knee sticks out against the door. And it is more about her fine apartment than her personally. I note that we have a high-EV photograph of her File:Beth Shak.jpg which isn't FP quality but more appropriate for the article. However, it was removed from the article for non-encyclopaedic reasons (see talk). She's notable for the poker aspect and nothing else as far as I can see. I don't buy the fashion designer justifying glamour shot claim (read the article carefully: she collects shoes and plans a range of fashion, according to the unsourced text). If she was a fashion model or tv presenter then perhaps the pose would be appropriate. Colin°Talk 17:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally someone points out the dislocated knee cap! 131.137.245.209 (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (Strong) oppose this is a PR photo with next to no EV. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Per Colin. I don't see anything in the criteria that says a promotional picture has any less EV then a non-promotional picture (a picture is a picture.) I believe that we are supposed to judge nominations by the criteria, and vote based on those set guidelines, not come up with a random reason to oppose (with an exception to Colin who actually found some minor flaws, and I agree with most of his concerns). I see no reason for opposing due it possibly being a promotional picture. Dusty 777 02:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason is one of much higher importance than the FPC guideline, it is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the neutral point of view principle, which states that articles should "document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner". Promotional is not impartial. And since there it is only one image in the infobox, and in the whole article, the representation is not impartial. -- ELEKHHT 12:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Balance is a luxury we can rarely afford for pictures, particularly for people. We pick from a very limited choice so tend to include any reasonable picture. And photographs, of any quality, are nearly always posed so naturally present a positive side of the person. When judging EV, we're looking at just one photo, so it can't sum up the person in their entirity nor can it be balanced on its own. It helps EV if the picture shows off an important aspect of their personality (such as the sport they play, or career). I don't think we should rule out promotional pictures, indeed for someone who is a "star", a promotional picture has higher EV than some random snapshot of them walking down the street. I agree that this promotional picture has low EV but a promotional picture of her playing poker might have great EV. Colin°Talk 14:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very much agree with the last sentence. However, I can only assess EV in the context of the whole article, not simply by "looking at just one photo". And while no single image can "sum up the person in their entirety", five documentary pictures will provide a much more comprehensive and balanced representation than five promotional ones. -- ELEKHHT 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me, what makes a promotional picture different then a non-promotional picture? Elekhh, can you elaborate a little on how the picture being a promotional picture affects the NPOV? It seems to me that is an issue with the article... I don't see how that affects the nomination. Dusty 777 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the others but in my mind it's not about neutrality; it's about the fact that the photograph is staged so as to show off the subject is a glamour sense and not about documenting what she actually looks like for an encyclopedia. The staging here detracts from how well it illustrated the subject for the encyclopedia. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think this is missing the point. "Documenting what they look like" isn't generally why people commission photographs or even permit photographs to be taken. I don't see any passport photographs making FP. Would you expect a high-EV photo of Audrey Hepburn to be anything other than staged to show of a beautiful actress? This kind of photo might be appropriate for another biography article, but seems unjustified and inappropriate here. What next? Boudoir photographs for Olympic athletes? Colin°Talk 15:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (undent, re to Colin) no, I don't think so. We do have publicity FPs (off the top of my head, the Stephen Wolfram one and some of performers); they certainly can be good illustrations of the person: this one isn't so much; I'm neutral because I think it does a pretty good job. Other than that you've lost me with the rest of your post. Boudoir photographs are very unlikely to illustrate the subject well, that's quite the point. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] purely on the opportunity to make shack up jokes.TCO (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)