Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jimbo Wales

Jimbo Wales
Iconic shot of the man who "makes the internet not suck". Appears in Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia and FOSDEM. If Wikipe-tan can make it, this certainly can.


 * Nominate and support. - - Jack (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is nothing that makes this picture special, other than Jimbo. HighInBC 23:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - not FP material. Renata 23:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the above, this is a nice shot but even technically it's flawed by the skewed centering, and there's hardly anything significant to this shot other than that it is of Jimbo. Cat-five - talk 00:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Subject not prominent, too much background, a lot of noise (could be fixed), and not very interesting; if you look at this image from the standpoint of the subject being a typical person, the image is quite boring. And this better not end up like Wikipe-tan did (but that was far better than this picture). -- Tewy  02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Bad composition. Focus of the image is hard to see in thumbnail. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Colour balance is off, framing could be a lot tighter, poor focus and slightly motion blurred. 1/25s exposure at ~100mm focal length is asking for trouble. Not the best choice of lens for this situation. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm learning a lot from this image. hmmm very encyclopedic. This guy is very handsome, is he friend of my teacher or brother of my neighbor? (Per above) Arad 02:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * by the way Wiki-tan is another mistake of being nominated. Arad 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose He is too far to the right in the image. Jam01 06:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm gonna go out on a limb here and try and explain why this composition works for me. The offset nature of the subject creates a more dynamic image - the eye is drawn to the right and creates movement. The space to his left is important, looking at his expression one imagines what he might be dreaming of in that space it's a big implied think bubble space. Proportionally I've had a stab at breaking it down into the golden section - the proportion of the image itself is a little out from the golden section (1:1.5 rather than 1:1.6) but it's pretty close, stay with me here - if we discard some backround above the image - call it border - take a look at the Edit 1. For all here calling for better composition I'm curious to learn what criteria for this 'bad' composition might be - yes it breaks symmetry, but for me creates something more dynamic and alive. But hey it's late at night, I'll probably regret this tomorrow. Please address hostile posts to erm......User:JWales. :-) Mcginnly | Natter 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't think my comment was hostile, what I mean from my comment is that the image is not encyclopedic. Arad 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Blimey, we really are worried about WP:NPA aren't we........The above post was pretty tongue in cheek all round (A golden section proportional analysis of Jimbo Wales? - Come on, we can have some fun here) Really no offence taken. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Does this pic have to be FP just because it is of Jimbo? There are already too many pictures of him already.He is the only significant thing in this picture.-- C hi  li  14  03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not FP material. Punkmorten 07:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

 howch e  ng   {chat} 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)