Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hillary Clinton II

Hillary Clinton II

 * Reason:The photo is a great demonstration of its subject, very good quality and reminds me of this featured photo. It was nominated a few months ago but failed because of background noise. This was corrected following a request at the Graphic Lab/Image Workshop.
 * Articles this image appears in:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign developments, 2007, Hillary Clinton
 * Creator:SEIU International at Flickr


 * Support as nominator --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Denoise masking was done poorly or not at all; general blurriness as a result. Significant loss of detail compared to original. Not FP quality. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Papa Lima. It's a pity, a better denoise on the original might work nicely, but for now you lose most of the wrinkles/depth of her face to waxiness. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The new denoised version is much better, you get the detail of her face but lose the background noise. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too much Jpeg artifact noise,I shouldv'e zoomed in a little further. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 23:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the right image, this image has FAR less noise than the original and MUCH less than other recently promoted FP pictures? — raeky ( talk 16:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (not voting since I did the graphic modification) Due to the issues brought up here I took another look and instead of a quick profile I spent the time to mask out her face and hair, so now the new version shouldn't have any detail loss in those areas, but the noise in the background and clothes should be removed now. So please take a second look at it if you've already put your opinion in to see if this resolves your concerns in the denoise department. — raeky ( talk 07:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It's a reasonable picture now. Two further comments: (a) can we have more of foreign leaders? we seem to be fairly US-biased on FPs at the moment - this is pertinent in this case as the reason the image was under a free license was nothing to do with US government policies on image licensing, it was simply put on flickr by a third party; surely if we trawl flickr, we should find plenty of suitably licensed images of foreign political leaders; (b) can we have an encyclopaedic crop without the dead space, for use in articles? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We have what we have, theres no biased, I don't like her politics, but it's a picture. Promote more foreign political leaders if we have FP quality images of them. — raeky ( talk 16:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Define have [...] images of them. I'm arguing the images are already on flickr, and we just haven't taken the time to find them, submit them to the week's flavor of flickrbot, and clean up/nominate them. Any further comments to my talk page please, as this is not the place to discuss the issue. Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - poor contrast --Avala (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

--Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 02:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)