Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/James Earl Jones

James Earl Jones
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2011 at 01:02:22 (UTC)
 * Reason:Large, clear, and acceptably licensed photo of the famous actor James Earl Jones. As Wikipedia's only large photo of him and the lead image in the article, this photo has strong encyclopedic value.
 * Articles in which this image appears:James Earl Jones, List of people who have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Entertainment
 * Creator:Photo by Stuart Crawford, cropped by user:Ubcule


 * Support as nominator --Pinetalk 01:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unfortunately. First of all, the crop is not an improvement, as it gives him too little headroom, makes the background harder to identify (it appears to be a blown-up, rather grainy black-and-white photograph), and highlights his belly.  The original is better, but I don't think I'd support that either, given the poor lighting and overexposure relative to the lighting, which not only leaves too much white on his forehead but makes him look more decrepit than he does in other recent photographs. Chick Bowen 01:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The focus of Featured Pictures is on encyclopedic quality, and I think that you're focusing disproportionately on the artistic quality. I think there's always room for improvement like not having his hand in front of his jaw, but it's still good enough for FP in my view because the EV is high, and the photo is large and clear. Pinetalk 05:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The lighting is hardly poor. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support quality of the subject is good; EV is sufficient. Clegs (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hand obscuring face, and complete lack of detail in the clothing. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral - per Adam, hand obscures face and greatly reduces value of the picture. But otherwise, I like it as a portrait. --Xijky (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Potentially good, but not this version. (i) Face is the key here (hand adds a gesture, and thus is not a big problem, IMO). The crop shifted it to the corner while I would move it more to the center, cutting the useless bottom-left part. (ii) Background is distracting - the viewer won't know what it is and why it is so grainy and black-and-white (making the color composition rather poor). I would blur or replace with some studio-like neutral screen. Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The original is better, but even there the over-exposed hand is too intrusive. It's a shame about the unflattering light; he has a lovely smile here. I don't see especially high EV; a shot of him acting would be better in that respect. --Avenue (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Blown highlights on top of head and hand; hand partially obscuring face; agree with MS that frame is not optimal. Sasata (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I have no objections to this.  upstate NYer  13:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OpposeHand disturbing the face, not in a streamlined shaped and partially blown out. -- Extra   999  (Contact me  +  contribs) 16:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I agree, the hand is out of place (especially as its skin is brighter than the head's ;), the background too. The crop is also a little bit too tight. Quality, EV is there.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 11:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)