Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Child, pre-vaccination

Child, pre-vaccination

 * Reason: The child's face is incredibly expressive, the wide eyes portraying a sliver of fear yet mostly wonderment at the events about to take place. It's face is in great contrast with the rest of the picture, as the face to the left is very dark, while the hands on the child's shoulder are slightly blurry, lending a great focus to the kid.
 * Articles this image appears in:2008 Nord-Kivu war
 * Creator:Julien Harneis


 * Support as nominator -- Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  01:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's not currently being used in any articles.--ragesoss (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. It was in the article I said it was in but I guess it got removed... or maybe I'm hallucinating. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  03:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It does have to be used in an article. Can you figure out why it was removed and add it back if possible? Fletcher (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- Great Picture to look at but no encyclopedic value as you dont really see whats going on. 128.131.213.60 (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Above IP: - If you are not already a user, it is recommended you sign up, because Ip !votes are not counted at FPC. Thanks. &mdash; Ceran  ♦ ( talk) 17:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't bite the newbies - IP comments are given less weight but not completely disregarded (unless the consensus has changed, and then it should be made explicit in instructions above). Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't bite, but traditionally IP's (particularly those with few edits) have not been given suffrage --Fir0002 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing's changed - Paragraph 3 at the top of the page seems pretty clear when it says: "Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded...". We generally leave the comment (unless it's abusive or clearly a sockpuppet) but disregard the 'vote'. --jjron (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IP. You can't see what's going on - lacks EV. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IP, and also, the subject's head is cut off severely.  Spencer T♦C 01:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per above, you can't tell what's going on. – Jerry  teps  10:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Quality portrait of a child in a part of the world most of us don't see, amidst an ongoing war. Framing is up close and personal -- there's times when something getting cut off is clearly a mistake by the photographer, but this isn't one of those times.  In fact, everything in this picture, not just the child's head, is cut off in some way, but I think it works very well.  Furthermore, a portrait photo is, by definition, a person just standing around -- there's not supposed to be anything "going on."  Now if this were intended to show the medical process of vaccination, I suppose it would lack EV, but it's not -- it's about the people in this war.  DOF was too shallow to get the ears, but the reflections in the eyes are amazing.  Fletcher (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Without being able to see what's truly going on, we're basically just left with a picture of an African child, and we have many of those that are considerably better than this one. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's an evocative, almost beautiful photograph, but the principal standard here is encyclopedic value.  The picture is in the article about the war but it doesn't illustrate the war.  It doesn't clearly illustrate subject matters such as "inoculation" either: my vote would be different if it could be shown that this photograph does clearly and appropriately illustrate a subject in an encyclopedic manner.  For further illustration of my point, see this discussion Spikebrennan (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

. --John254 03:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)