Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Christopher Mintz-Plasse - 001.jpg

Christopher Mintz-Plasse portrait
✅ Is of a high technical standard - there are no artifacts and has good color balance, light, focus, or any other technical imperfections. ✅ Is of high resolution ✅ Is among Wikipedia's best work - It is a photograph which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer. As a portrait in a BLP, it is a standard to emulate. ✅ Has a free license. It was released to the public domain. ✅ Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article - As a portrait it perfectly and singly illustrates the subject of the BLP. ✅ Is accurate. - trivial to verify that this is indeed the subject using non-free images in reliable sources. ✅ Has a good caption The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. It has a succinct caption that properly identifies the subject and describes the context of the photograph with the most relevant meta-detail: date and location. ✅ Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation. there is no such manipulation.
 * Reason:
 * Articles this image appears in:Christopher Mintz-Plasse
 * Creator:Mutari (commons)


 * Support as nominator --Cerejota (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sharp and distracting reflections on glasses. --Muhammad (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was going to say exactly the same thing. In addition, lighting is not optimal. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 14:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose joke? Wladyslaw (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. It's a reasonable composition, but it just lacks in other areas. And as an aside, no good comes from asking if a nom is a joke. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what a dick.--Cerejota (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, no good comes from abusing voters either. --jjron (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Duck test, as per my link. Not a personal attack, but a simple statement of fact.--Cerejota (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User warned for personal attacks. Please direct further comments on this to that users talk page, and keep future dicussion here on topic.  Thanks, —  Jake   Wartenberg  12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, you can't just go around accusing people of doing personal attacks, and expect them to keep silent. Specially expect to frame were and how discussion is to be be had. I see you are a new user, perhaps you need to see that NPA is not to be claimed lightly, or with such drama, and that in general we try to resolve matters were they happen, and not on other forums (unless, of course). The rest of my response, well, is in my talk page. I am just saying you are wrong in your approach, wrong in your opinion, and pretty unwikipedian in general. I am a battle scarred veteran of a million fights were there have been true personal attacks, none of them on my part. You created a storm in a teapot, and you should be ashamed. When you become a veteran editor, with substantial contributions (not the lard in your edit history), then lets have an IRC chat and sort it out. --Cerejota (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Cerejota, you seem to focus on the fact that Jake Wartenberg hasn't been an editor as long as you have. Surely a user's time as an editor has no bearing on whether or not they're right or wrong. Moreover, on your talk page, you speak of beating the dead horse with a stick; as far as I can tell, you're the only one who's provoking this dispute. I see no reason for this discussion to continue. –Juliancolton Talk  ·  Review  02:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is unsharp and noisy. Mfield (Oi!) 18:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The glasses reflection is distracting, photo is noisy.  ♪Tempo  di Valse ♪  22:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the awful reflection and the noise. Not a great size but I agree it has limited enc.  GARDEN  22:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)