Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2010 at 00:12:18 (UTC)
 * Reason:I am going to stand up for my congressman because I actually think this photo is a bit more vibrant than most official portraits that I've seen. In other words, I actually don't think this is just another official portrait.  If you look at Illinois's congressional districts, you would likely agree that this is one of if not the best photo on the page.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Jesse Jackson, Jr. North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University Illinois's congressional districts Rod Blagojevich corruption charges
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Political
 * Creator:Very likely that Victor Powell of Powell Photography, Inc. who also did File:Sandi Jackson.jpg and File:Sandi and Jesse Photograph.jpg is the creator. I would have to check although usually saying work done for the U.S. government is sufficient.  I will check if need be.


 * Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this is a fine congressional portrait (they pretty much all are), Congress must have a little room dedicated to these images—the congressional equivalent of those photo booth kiosks at the mall—so these things are a dime a dozen. Our Main Page has a “Today's featured article” section and I suggest we see if Jesse Jackson Jr. warrants being featured there. But as his photo goes, I’m not seeing how this is one of Wikipedia’s better images that is so special that it is “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” Not because of the photo quality it isn’t (IMHO). Perhaps this is what J Milburn meant, below, on that historical portrait when he wrote “Additionally, modern formal portraits of this sort normally don't stand a chance.” Greg L (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is indeed. J Milburn (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for it being 'one of many' and not particularly interesting. Technically a great shot but I need more than that. JFitch   (talk)  10:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not eye catching. -- bydand • talk
 * Oppose as above. J Milburn (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even technically, it's not that good - super artifacted, not that sharp. Add the terrible cheesy background - not FP material. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)