Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr. (second nomination)

I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr. (second nomination)

 * Reason:Meets all the criteria. Was previously shot down because of all things, the name of the image. Well, okay, change it. Image is highly illustrative of a key part of a Military Brat's life, technically sound (the focus is the girl, so really, losing a centimeter of the man's boots is nothing.) Emotional, definitely some of Wikipedia's finest work.
 * Articles this image appears in:Military brat (U.S. subculture)
 * Creator:Technical Sergeant Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr., USAF


 * Support as nominator --User:Nezzadar (speak) 18:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Heartfelt photo, but unfortunately there is a serious cut off, so the soldier's look is unknown. Brand[t] 19:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the soldier's look is irrelevent, the focus is on the child's emotions/response to a parent's departure. The fact that the parent is unseen is part of the power in this picture as anybody can then relate to the child.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The cutting off of the shoe is an issue for me. It's not an important part of the subject, but cutting it off is distracting. I dislike the background, particularly the green stuff on the left hand side and the woman, who is badly cut off and interferes with the subject, the girl. Also, there are blown highlights on the left hand side of the man's left leg, on the edge of the girl's dress, and the entire bottom of the image. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose; not only is the random women in the background somewhat distracting, but the whole thing bothers me. It reeks of something I don't like. If that doesn't count as an oppose, so be it, but I don't like this picture at all. In any case, what does it really add to the article? J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose This shot is artistic, with a lot of emotions showing, but i find the EV highly dubious. I fail to see how we could possibly describe a "military brat" in a single picture. If the soldier was in civilian clothes, we wouldn't be able to tell he is a soldier, and that the girl qualifies as a "military brat". My point is that this is a picture of a girl hanging to what we may suppose is her father's leg...Again a great artistic shot but very low EV and use in Wikipedia (imagine the article without the picture, you don't loose any information). Ksempac (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons given last time. And FWIW, no it wasn't "shot down because of...the name of the image" - it doesn't sound like you got much past the first oppose. The main objections were low EV, combined with other issues such as being cutoff. --jjron (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Cute, but a bit too emotive, with not enough EV. I don't think this is a subject that is easily illustrated by an image. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose just like the last time. Cacophony (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose propaganda – Wladyslaw (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please expand on this? —  Jake   Wartenberg

Withdrawn Ah well, worth a shot. Still a good photo. User:NezzadarUser_talk:Nezzadar 05:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Distracting background, bad cut off & not balance.--Stavenn (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per my reasoning last time. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support IMO it has Ev and it is eye-catching that one would feel like reading the accompanying article. --Muhammad (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OpposeBadly framed. Biased or very limited representation of the topic focusing in a narrow point of the subject of military brat.  Franklin.vp   13:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: First nomination failed. It's here --User:NezzadarUser_talk:Nezzadar 05:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC) -- Reason: nom withdraw