Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/JackXArik.png 3

JackXArik.png 3
Voting period ends on 24 May 2014  at 07:14:42 (UTC)
 * Reason:Well, the first nomination failed by a hair, and the second had little interest. Let's try again. My rationale is the same. "I think this should qualify as a featured picture as it is a tactful representation of the subject matter, Yaoi (also known as boys love), which as noted by the article is "female-oriented fictional media that focus on homoerotic or homoromantic male relationships". The image is of high resolution and good artistic quality. Although this is rightfully not a FP criteria, it should also be noted that the image is featured at Commons. As a side note, it appears that this image would be one of the first anime and manga related FPs." Please see the first nomination for discussion of the medium.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Yaoi (lead image)
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art
 * Creator:Sen Cross (first published at Animexx), uploaded by Don-kun


 * Support as nominator – — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per my comment back in November. I've raised the same concern both times, and I am unconvinced that the issue has been adequately addressed. The EV here derives from its status as an example of the genre, but we have no reliable source tying the work/artist to the genre, and the medium appears to be atypical. J Milburn (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Nihonjoe explained that adequately in the first nomination, but that's me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've struck out my opposition for now, but my concerns remain. I'll think a little further about this. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, basically per my previous vote. Even if it were a notable artist, I don't think this particular stuff would be of FP level - putting aside divisive public opinions on this, I'd say this is rather "meh" than "wow". Brandmeistertalk  21:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question: do you have any examples of yaoi that are "wow" for you? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't think yaoi as a whole is FP level. Brandmeistertalk  08:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I was afraid of, and proof of the bias against LGBT topics mentioned elsewhere. So be it, at least we proved FOX News wrong. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have any objection to having a featured picture of yaoi. Heck, I know exactly what it feels like to have an FPC questioned because of someone's personal views on the subject matter being depicted. My concern here is that I'm not sure that this is the best we can do, art quality wise. I know from dealing with Category:Artwork depicting Natalia Poklonskaya that we can get reams of very high quality art from art communities (in the Poklonskaya case, the community was pixiv, not Animexx) by asking the artists. You might never win some people over on criteria 5 (which is a shame), but you're losing support from several people over criteria 3, people you might get support from with a higher quality image. You might want to reach out to and get the exact wording he used to get so many images released.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of issues with the images from pixiv, although I can't be sure that they would apply to the community's yaoi. First and foremost, the resolution of the images donated is just too small; the vast majority are below the 1500 px minimum. Second, the backgrounds are too simple (at least in the images in that category); that's a good choice for a moe portrait, which focuses on the individual, but not so good for a genre which relies on the atmosphere and interactions between characters to create its romance (especially with no dialogue). This image can tell a story, even though it's just one frame; several of the portraits aren't as communicative. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did some rummaging around on Animexx, and while I was able to find a number of pieces that I considered higher in technical quality, the only ones that met the size requirements contained copyrighted characters (this and this for example). I was surprised to find that colored pencils are a surprisingly common medium on that site, so while I'd still prefer a nominee using computer graphics, my concerns about the art quality are somewhat alleviated. I'll give it some thought.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Quote: "First and foremost, the resolution of the images donated is just too small; the vast majority are below the 1500 px minimum" - it depends on the author. If they choose to upload a tiny image, we can't really do much about it. However, people with a Pixiv account can download high resolution images if the author uploads one. -- benlisquare T•C•E 05:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For the images in the category Sven mentioned above, it's true. I haven't had time to go to the community and see what other things they have to offer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 07:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)