Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/King of Bhutan

Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck

 * Reason:The picture is of an exceptionally high, professional quality. The technical standard is superior and is of comparable quality to our featured pictures of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Mohammed Alim Khan.
 * Articles this image appears in:Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck
 * Creator:Image sent to Wikipedia by the Bhutanese royal family.


 * Support as nominator --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose not very sharp and just above the minimum size Muhammad (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Technically weak (per Muhammad), but not terrible either. More important, this image, apparently donated here by the royal family, seems like it could be an extremely rare image -- if you go to Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck and look at the infobox showing his royal family, we have very scant coverage and no other pictures. We must have a gazillion photos of Obama, GWB, etc. This represents systemic bias.  Fletcher (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I absolutely agree with Fletcher here. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Per Fletcher.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 The portrait seems pretty good and asthetically pleasing. Quite a lot of blown highlights though unfortunately (mostly the red channel). The relatively low shutter speed seems to have caused some camera shake blur which I have compensated for as much as possible in the edit, the change is most visible around the eyes. Noodle snacks (talk)
 * Support Edit 1 In the full size, I do notice the blur (around the eyes) on the original and correction made by Noodle snacks. Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 03:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Although the photo is a bit smaller than I would like to see, I will support until there is a larger copy available. smooth0707  (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. Any minor flaws (such as the fact that it's cropped a little too close, resulting in the loss of a bit of his right arm and left cuff) are more than made up for by the difficulty in getting a free image of this subject (no pun intended) at all. —Angr 07:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 edit 2 Diego_pmc  Talk 08:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 - Good portrait. --Caspian blue 16:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 slightly smaller then it could be but, very asthetically pleasing, very difficult to get image. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 User:Angr really sums up my opinion on this pic. It's not technically perfect, but its still nice enough and its rarity makes up for it.  Spencer T♦C 21:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Request I just noticed some damage done by the sharpening process. On the back of this head, at the limit between his hair and the wall there is a bright line (artifact). Would someone please fix that, I find it pretty annoying. See this pic. Diego_pmc  Talk 13:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support either --Avala (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)