Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Meeting Royal 2007 02 06 n1.jpg

French Socialist Party Meeting

 * Reason:Encyclopedic picture in high quality
 * Articles this image appears in:Ségolène Royal
 * Creator:User:Jastrow


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Tomer T 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Guy on the left is a little out of focus, and the event and people are not overly important. Clh288 13:14, 24 April 2007
 * weak oppose there seem to be some (for lack of a better word) jiggery issues - if you along many of the lines, they are kind of ragged, like there is some scaling or interlacing artifact. Does anyone else see that? Other than that I rather like it, it is an interesting portrait of politicians. Clh: What are you talking about "not overly important?" Which FPC criterion are you referencing, and how is one of two front runners for the presidency of France not an important person?Debivort 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know she is not very favored to win, I know a 5% difference doesn't sound like much, but in France were the vote is spread out among so many people it is a killer.Chris H 03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which FP criterion says that the subject of an FP must have a high chance of winning? :-) Debivort 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose This must be a joke. It doesn't characterize that event and the topic is pointless/unimportant anyway.--Svetovid 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which FP criterion says that the topic/subject must be important? Debivort 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense! The topic is very important, it includes notable French politicians and one of them even can become France's leader. Tomer T 11:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It fails the 3rd, 5th and 7th criterion.--Svetovid 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which FP criterion says that the topic/subject must be important? Debivort 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, technically, it's not a very good shot. I can see why it was nominated because it is a closeup of three important figures in French politics.  I would say it better represents the party (and I added it to that page) than it does Royal.  But, I still don't think it's FP material just because it's hard for us without press passes to get photos of the famousies. gren グレン 16:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support I think we need more pictures of current politicians in general, and this is a good, but not great, picture. Beautiful coloring. There are technical issues, and the focus is soft, but I still vote for it. --Asiir 12:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Primarily because of the blown skin tone, and that the picture is not very sharp even though it's been down-sampled quite a lot. --antilivedT 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What does blown skin tone mean?Debivort 16:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 10:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Either it's blown red channel in the skin tone or it's posterisation. --antilivedT 08:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Although I like this shot I really wasn't going to actively support it. Despite good lighting, composition, and enc value, it does fail other FP quality criteria (softness, posterisation, compression defects, strange post-processing anomolies) but Asiir's conditional support (and gren's oppose) made me realise it really is among the best Wikipedia has to offer in the way of current affairs shots. In the face of considerable opposition I'd like to encourage people to think again, because until press agency photographers are persuaded to release their work under a CC license (ie a *long* time!) it will remain among the best we have, I think. mikaultalk 18:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)