Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Knut Steen

Knut Steen
Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2010 at 11:00:15 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality portrait with plenty of character, used as the lead image in the biography. Already featured on Commons.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Knut Steen
 * FP category for this image:People/Others
 * Creator:Nina-no


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support--Avala (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. Greg L (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I like it. — m o n o   03:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Wonderful portrait. On the small side, but makes up for it with character. - Bilby (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Suppport Gut Monk (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - one of the better portraits I've seen here. -- Jack ?! 01:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think this quite meets the standard for portraits. It's not particularly sharp, kinda small, and over-exposed in parts. I'm not convinced of the EV either. He's a sculptor; we should see him sculpting or at least in a studio. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not understanding the EV argument. He's a person- this is a portrait. I think it's a little unfair and dehumanising to demand a portrait of someone "doing what they do", as if they don't matter outside of that. We have plenty of portrait FPs which don't show people "doing what they do". (I have no qualm with your technical objections, I just felt the positives outweighed the negatives- that's a judgement call.) J Milburn (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably opposed those portraits. I just don't find most portraits to be worth featuring. To me, a picture of a person only has EV if it tells me something useful about that person. I don't think anyone else shares that view, and it's kind of a hokey reason to oppose anyway, so I usually avoid voting on portraits. The technicals were the bigger issue here, for me, but I thought I'd mention the EV as well. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. It looks fantastic as a thumbnail, but the quality is not quite up to current standards. Back in 2007 it might have been ok, but I see no reason to re-warm some old stuff here. The resolution is just mediocre, and it looks like there are traces of (in-camera?) denoising, removing some of the the fine detail in the image. --Dschwen 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that mentality; see my delist nom. I do feel this particular one's there, but, again, that's a judgement call. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  talk 15:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)