Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HomelessParis

French Man In the Streets
Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2010 at 06:10:44 (UTC)
 * Reason:The 2nd place POTY on the commons for 2006
 * Articles in which this image appears:Homelessness, Homelessness in popular culture, Poverty in France, Marginalization
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:Eric Pouhier


 * Support as nominator --Iankap99 (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Previous nomination: Featured picture candidates/Homeless man in Paris. --jjron (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose; over-processed, small. Artistic and emotive, as are a lot of high placing POTY candidates, but not really FP material, to my eyes. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good but too small. Try for WP:VPC. Can the creator upload a bigger version? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To both Greg and Reditigerxyz, the image itself is 804×604, i don't know why it is resized to 300x300 here, can someone assist please?--Iankap99 (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can help. I really like this image. But Featured picture criteria #2 requires that that image resolution be a “a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height.” Here, the thumbnail is only 300 pixels across and no one is holding that against it. But the full-size native file is only 804 pixels across. And that’s too bad, because I think this image is truly striking. It seems to have plenty of “encyclopedic value” (EV) as used in Poverty in France. Greg L (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I understand now. While the resolution is regrettable, images under that criteria have been passed and anything is wave-able, --Iankap99 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My oppose is only due to #2. The creator of the photo has uploaded bigger images on wikimedia. May be the creator can be approached to upload a bigger version. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I like the Cibachrome&thinsp;/&thinsp;SX-70 look. The image captures the eye. But the FP criteria require higher res than this. I suggest Speedy Close as “Not promoted”; that is, unless others here want to wave the resolution requirement based on its other virtues. Is ‘minimum resolution’ waveable or inviolate? When I click on the full-size native file, I’m impressed. Greg L (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since a picture below the minimum was passed, but anything is waveable.  Jujutacular  T · C 21:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it your opinion that this picture is worthy? --Iankap99 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an emotive picture to be sure, but I would only consider supporting if we were to obtain a version with less artistic effects, per Papa Lima Whiskey's comment below.  Jujutacular  T · C 15:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I’ll vote my conscience (even though it is likely others won’t see it my way). Yes… “worthy.” WP:Ignore All Rules is properly used whenever Wikipedia can be improved when a square peg of a circumstance can’t be pounded into a round hole of a policy. This image, overall, is very impressive. Not being able to zoom in to the point that we can see moles on this guy’s neck isn’t required to appreciate it. The full-size image is very striking and made me stop and stare. I love the Cibachrome&thinsp;/&thinsp;SX-70 look. For the attention-deficit crowd that so prone to sailing past Wikipedia’s main page, that is a good thing.  Greg L (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I'm not keen on the very dark edges myself (whaever the technical term is), but my main reason is that there is no way of knowing by looking at this picture that this has anything to do with France... This is just a random homeless guy... Yes, it therefore has EV in Homelessness but as for Poverty in France it's just a nice picture - has no direct EV as not definately France... Gazhiley (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd prefer not to let this nomination pass without having said something about WP:NPOV. If it is the case that this image has been intensively post-processed (e.g. add vignette, reduce saturation) to achieve this particular "look", then it cannot be said to be free of the artist's own point of view, and as such, would fail one of Wikipedia's core policies (linked above). I think the unedited photograph could be just as effective. Apparently, an attempt to contact the author is being made for the first time. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Sure. That is a very legitimate take with as much merit as anyone else’s. The FPC criteria requires that “Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.” Clearly, the vignetting is artistic flourish beyond the simple sharpening and color-correction the FPC criteria explicitly says is OK. But the criteria also states that “More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text”; such disclosure was not provided on the image-description page. But then, the vignetting, extreme contrast, and attenuated color saturation—all of which lead to a gloomy effect—are readily apparent anyway. I would argue that these edits don’t “misrepresent” the nature of the image but I understand that others will think it pushes the bounds of POV-pushing too far—like Time Magazine’s treatment of OJ Simpson. My view was that the stylized nature would be fine for a FP because the effect isn’t dehumanizing nor does it backhand France; it is simply a very eye-catching image. I fully well expect others won’t see it that way. It’s been stylized—but not to the point of misrepresenting the image, IMHO—and the image size is below the minimum: two strikes against it. Nevertheless, I voted my conscience since I can easily imagine this image being on the front of Time, Newsweek, or Life magazines. Greg L (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but something worthy of the front-over of one of those magazines isn't always what we want- the front covers are designed to be eye-catching, emotive and interesting not, necessarily, encyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose as last time: Small, the vignetting and desaturation aren't realistic.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Over processed and I have real concerns about personality rights issues - given the massive stigma associated with having ever been homeless, it seems totally unethical to use photos of a homeless person who a) is clearly identified in the photo and b) doesn't appear to have given explicit consent to be either photographed or have the photo published on one of the world's most popular websites. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose there isn't enough EV here, not even remotely enough, to justify the very very low (And below our very low standards) resolution. — raeky ( talk 12:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest speedy close- we have a large number of nominations active at the moment, and this one is not going to pass. J Milburn (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)