Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ibukun Odusote

Ibukun Odusote
Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016  at 18:43:28 (UTC)
 * Reason:"Adam told me to do it".... it appears that my motives fopr nominating this image effects other peoples opinions. So I have been asked to think of other reasons apart from the actual one. So ... I think its good that this person represents two underreprsented groups on Wikipedia. I also thought that I might learn something about the FP process... and I have
 * Articles in which this image appears:Ibukun Odusote
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
 * Creator:icannphotos - Ibukun Odusote Uploaded by russavia


 * Support as nominator – Victuallers (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – The bright lighting on the right side of her head is distracting. Is there any chance of dimming it a little? may be one stop? Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – but it would be nice if we could reduce the side glare. Bammesk (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to reduce it, but wasn't getting very good results. Also, Support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Question Can you please update the reason to something other than "Adam told me to?" Ie the reason you wish to nominate this image, why you think it is FP worthy please? gaz hiley  12:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK I have Victuallers (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure I see the EV, how does one determine that she is notable? What makes her special and not the hundreds of thousands of other civil servants? One of the references in the page doesn't even mention her, but Nigeria's Akinwumi Adesina instead. Mattximus (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply She was the person responsible for the .ng domain. Thats a fairly important job. Not sure what EV is. She is also a Permanent Secretary for a ministry.... another top ranking job in (UK style) civil service. Victuallers (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Odd/poor lighting and relatively limited notability - Wolftick (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Notability is not part of the criteria; so long as a subject is notable enough for an article, they're notable enough for FP. Image is clear and sharp. Lighting is admittedly stark, but that was a deliberate choice by the photographer that I can get behind in this case. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to portraits of politicians or civil servants I think that notability is an aspect of WP:FP? #3 "Is among Wikipedia's best work.[?]". Such official professionally shot public domain portraits are fairly common so notability as well as quality are factors when considering a FPC. I believe this has precedent in previous similar nominations, as well as with coats of arms and flags. - Wolftick (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A belief is simply not enough; do you have any actual evidence of precedent? In my 5+ years commenting on FPC nominations, I've seen that official portraits have generally failed and succeeded not on the notability of the individual alone, but on the quality of the image and the whims of the !voters. Yes, there are one or two editors *cough* who will !vote on notability, but they are in the minority. That's why we have (political portraits alone) Teddy Roosevelt just a few rows away from Annkathrin Kammeyer.
 * As a side note: I think that it's good that we've got a lot more freely licensed official portraits to choose from. I, for one, am tired of looking at biographies which have no pictures whatsoever. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also as a side note, I fully agree.
 * I do think though that it is an issue where large numbers of high quality but rather similar fairly generic professional portraits of contemporary politicians etc are available to be nominated for FP. I don't think it would be good to promote all of them en masse so I think there should be some criteria beyond simply the quality of the picture, which is by it's nature likely to be of a high technical standard. I had seen people mentioning notability in this regard previously and did not think this was an unreasonable criteria to use where the portrait itself is not particularly exceptional in my opinion. I suppose in a way it's not how notable the person is, rather how notable or exceptional the portrait is taken as a whole. I think this is a reasonable interpretation of WP:FP? #3 - Wolftick (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Nice portrait. – Yann (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)