Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/House painter

House painter
Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2013  at 09:20:40 (UTC)
 * Reason:Engaging composition, high quality and high EV - good demonstration of the painter occupation. An "action shot" of a daily task :)
 * Articles in which this image appears:House painter and decorator
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:Jorge Royan


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. An interesting composition and well taken, but I'm not sure it's particularly useful as an image. Having said that, I guess it shows that a painter and decorator does not necessarily use modern methods and equipment in many parts of the world, and for that reason helps with countering systematic bias towards western/modern content. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, but why do you think it's not very useful? Where does it lack in illustration? Tomer T (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I find that unusual compositions, while interesting, are not as simple to understand or learn from. Ultra wide angles for architectural photography are often unavoidable due to logistical and geographic constraints, but I don't think that's the case for a photography of a painter and decorator where (almost) any composition is conceivable. Anyway, I haven't opposed it. I like it as a photo, I just don't know if the wide angle works to help in aiding understanding of what he's doing. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I like this picture as a picture, but I would query the claim of "high EV" (I understand "EV" to mean "encyclopedic value"). IMO the encyclopedic value of this is almost zero. However, as I say, it is a nice picture to look at. 86.128.6.77 (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When we have an encyclopedia article titled House painter and decorator and this is the lead image, I think the EV criterion is satisfied. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the case necessarily. There are plenty of poorly written and edited articles with poor lead images. Just because Wikipedia articles exist in a particular state, it doesn't follow that they are (or their lead image is) of high EV. We need to use our own judgement here rather than making presumptions about EV. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the WP:Featured picture criteria: "An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many." I'd say that it is pretty obvious that this image contributes strongly to the article that it is illustrating. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO it contributes in a decorative way (which is no bad thing since almost any picture makes an article much more inviting), but not significantly in an information-imparting way (which was what I thought "EV" meant) since it shows nothing noteworthy about technique, equipment, etc., and, in fact, it is not even clear what he is doing. It is not clear that the brush is charged with paint, or whether paint is being applied to the wall, or whether he is brushing away dust, or what. 86.160.222.107 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Painters generally have a bucket of paint or whitewash along with the brush or roller, and it is kept within reach. That paint bucket is a prominent equipment which is not visible in this picture hence its EV for painter profession is diminished. Ahirwav (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This image well and truly deserves its FP status on Commons, but the cluttered composition significantly diminishes its EV for Wikipedia purposes I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I see no EV problem here. As I've stated above, the image contributes strongly to the article it is illustrating, and, according to the featured picture criteria, that means it has high EV. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I can see arguments for this image working both ways. Here's the thing for me... this is an engaging photograph of a boring (but important) task. This photo should draw a good number of people to the article. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 04:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Although the composition is good, the image does not depict a typical house painting situation. There is neither a visible paint bucket nor a conventional ladder used by painters.Sanyambahga (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sanyambahga. In addition, the angle of viewing the painter is quite awkward.  Spencer T♦ C 04:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 09:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)