Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Taslim right.jpg

Taslim right
Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2012 at 16:26:41 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality and EV. Shows an under-represented subject well.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Salah, Taslim
 * Creator:Muhammad Mahdi Karim


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fairly ordinary photo. The corner wall is distracting. And 1.7MP is not "high resolution". Colin°Talk 18:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get why you write high resolution in quotes as if I had mentioned it. The image surpasses the requirements for FPC criteria which makes your concern moot --Muhammad (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting the FPC. In full it says "a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height; larger sizes are generally preferred". Just because a picture scrapes past the "minimum" doesn't mean it deserves featuring as our best work. If there were mitigating circumstances that prevented a higher resolution version, or the image was so outstanding that I'm saying to myself "thank-you so much for donating your commercially extremely valuable picture to Wikipedia", then I might be persuaded. But this is a snapshot of a guy in a room. Sub-HDTV resolution pictures should be an exception. Colin°Talk 20:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am surprised to see the bully-ish commons attitude has come here as well. A minimum of 1000 in width or height, mine is greater than that in both dimensions. And FWIW, this picture is commercially valuable to me as I have earned quite a bit from it already --Muhammad (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "bully-ish" about this. You've donated a useful picture to WP and if that's the largest size you want to donate then I don't have a problem with that. Thank you for donating. But if you want me to support it as "among Wikipedia's best work" or even to claim it is "of high resolution" then sorry, that won't do. I can get a higher resolution picture by pressing pause on my TV. The criteria clearly state that larger sizes are preferred. There's nothing extraordinary about this photograph that makes we want to accept the bare minimum. Colin°Talk 08:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't stop at pause. Why don't you record the videos from your TV and upload them here? Coz it's not free! --Muhammad (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is great that your image free. Thank you for uploading it. Doesn't make it featurable, though. Colin°Talk 07:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Colin°. Sanyambahga (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Would a video work better, Muhammad? A video showing an entire prayer would of course be great, but I'm not sure if its allowed in Islam. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's allowed but there are different lengths of prayers for different times of the day. The shortest prayer would take around 2 mins --Muhammad (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We have different articles for Subuh, Maghrib, and the other three mandatory prayers, right? I don't see why we couldn't have videos of all of them Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Illustrative but lacking in many compositional elements including background choice, lighting (shadows) etc that would make this suitable for FP. Where are his feet? Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see much need for higher resolution. While that might reveal further details of the skin, hair or carpet, it would have no bearing on the EV of the picture, which is related to demonstrating the posture. What makes this image not be one of Wikipedia's best is the distracting background and the composition. Not only the corner is distracting, but white is not a good background for the white head cover, and blue is not a good background for blue pants. -- ELEKHHT 22:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your argument makes some sense --Muhammad (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Please could you consider adding commons:Template:Consent with the appropriate parameter to confirm the subject's approval of publishing these photographs? --99of9 (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's not a requirement and is rather rare template... we use the personality rights template on commons as a warning about living persons, but consent of the person being photographed is implied by posing for them. There would be only extremely rare instances where you'd want to request consent of the person in the photograph if it's not clear they're posing and are in a private place, then POSSIBLY, but if they're in a public place or it's clear they're posing then it's pretty clear they consented or consent isn't necessary (in the case of public place). — raeky  t  09:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, commons:COM:PEOPLE was changed a while back (after a WMF resolution) to require an assertion of subject consent for photos of identifiable people in private locations (which this photo appears to be). (It doesn't have to be done with a template, but IMO that is the easiest and best way to keep track of this in future.)  Your statement assuming that posing implies consent to publish is incorrect - the most extreme counter-example is ex-boyfriend/girlfriend pics. --99of9 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ( a little more than 90 images out of the over 12 million images on common's uses that template... ) — raeky  t  09:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's true that it's not common yet, which is one reason I'm seeking to raise awareness, especially on content we consider featuring. --99of9 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Commons has a poor record for considering anything other than copyright law. Thanks for raising this 99of9, and thanks for confirming the consent, Muhammad. -- Colin°Talk 07:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Muhammad (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Support I think this had good EV. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)