Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lucy Merriam

Lucy Merriam

 * Reason:I'm not certain what makes a good portrait of a child (is it any different from a good portrait of an adult?) but this one looks pretty good, and I believe we have no featured images of child celebrities. Another nice image submitted by the copyright holder (in this case, the subject's mother, which also deals with any potential privacy issues- if her mother's happy for us to have it, I don't think anyone's going to object on those grounds...)
 * Articles this image appears in:Lucy Merriam
 * Creator:Work for hire created by a family photographer, owned by Lisa Merriam


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Very weak oppose  Good composition but IMO the DOF is way too shallow and thus not much is sharp --Muhammad (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral per Diliff. I don't feel quite strongly to support it though. --Muhammad (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support with Dismay  It's a beautiful photo, but I really pity the poor girl. Statisticly, as a child actor, she doesn't have the slightest chance for ever having a normal life. I mean look at the pose, it's normally used for female adult actresses to arouse viewers. No i'm not a pervert. I am not convinced as to how appropriate this photo is.  Nezzadar   ☎   14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a pose that has been used sexually, yes, but I certainly wouldn't call it a sexual pose. I have no real opinion on the whole ethics of child stars (in fact, check my contributions list) but I don't think that's something that should affect our judgement of this picture. J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but everything everyone does is based on some combination of the subjective and objective, with neither ever being 100% dominant. This happens to be a case where the subjective pops up and screams "WTF!" Usually, when my mind screams at me, I listen.  Nezzadar   ☎   15:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also disagree that it's an inherently sexual pose. But you're right, everyone's opinion is subjective, and prior associations and experiences affect our judgements. It's fine to listen to your 'intuition', but when you recognise that you're letting it make decisions regarding objective criteria, then it's probably time to take a step backwards and re-think. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Apart from a compositional faux pas (IMO) with slightly too much space on the left side of the frame, I think it's a pretty good portrait. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - makeup:age ratio is more than a little disturbing. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm not convinced there is any makeup- there's no mascara, eyeshadow or eyeliner, and any foundation is very light- there may be a little blush/glitter, but I'm not convinced. Secondly, I'm really not seeing that as a valid reason to oppose. On publicity shots like this, almost everyone wears makeup, even if it's just a little foundation. Further, she's a model/actress- at that age, I can imagine that most of the impetus to hire will be based on how the child looks- if a dash of makeup (it's not a lot, at all- if there is any, it's very natural-looking and light) adds to that, so be it. Again, to echo what I said above, we should not be sitting here making judgements about how we don't like the fact that child stars exist, we should be sitting here judging whether this image meets our FP guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I'll support although I see the blur in her right arm. I don't know how difficult is to get a better picture of the subject released to wikipedia. My main purpose is to compensate for those oppositions sustained in age-sexual elements. I want to say that that pose isn't sexual at all. It is just the classical S-shaped pose that makes female figure pleasant (very subtle in this case). I would like to say also (although it shouldn't be a topic of discussion for this FP candidacy) that sexual awareness is developed in childhood at early ages (just let us remember our own games with the pretty neighbor of the next house) and this girl, for sure, must have some precocity (which I don't think it is implied by the picture at all) if we see the type of activities in which is involved. Let's not be ashamed of sexuality if we see it, it is part of human nature. Let's not be prejudiced (or at least not in a so trivial way). I don't think it should be the point in which it should be analyzed this picture.  Franklin.vp   21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, per Franklin VP. I want to say that I really don't think that the oppose votes hold any weight at all. For a child actor, we would expect to see light make-up, and this increases, rather than decreases the EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Edit - Support withdrawn until licensing concerns are resolved. Edit 2. Remove strike, sourcing issues appear to have been resolved. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, there is no licensing concern. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't think this is a great portrait of children in light of the pose, facial expression, and general technical quality (sharpness, light etc). I also feel uncomfortable with the photo due to the similar opinion presented by Nezzadar. Although Wikipedia is not censored, we should protect subjected people especially "children" from all kind of weird people like paedophiles. The photo reminds me of Luis Carrole's child photography...--Caspian blue 12:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Changing my vote late in the game after reading what everyone has said. It's not because of the appropriateness, but of the photo itself. It's a nice publicity shot... until you zoom in. Then it starts having flaws. I agree with Muhammad on this.  Nezzadar   ☎   14:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to understand that it is a common portraiture technique to use a shallow depth of field to accentuate the features. As long as the eyes are in focus, it's not usually as important that everything else is in perfect focus. A portrait is also not intended to be viewed as closely either, as we take in the overall scene rather than scan the image for detail. We can't apply our standards for landscape photography to portraiture IMO, just as we don't expect everything to be in perfect focus for macro photography (If that were the case, Muhammad would have a lot less FPs!). &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that shallow DOF may be used and eyes shud be in focus but the focus in this image missed the eyes and instead, part of the right(her left) portion of the hair is sharper. --Muhammad (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think her left eye is in focus though. Downsample it to the resolution you upload your images to and you would probably struggle to find any part of her face significantly out of focus. Sorry, I'm not singling your photos out, I'm just pointing out that it's easy to find slight focus issues when viewing the photo at the original high res, and as I said above, I think composition and expression is of more importance to portraiture than perfect focus because we typically view portraits as a whole at a suitable viewing distance, and don't scan for detail at 100% size as we often do for macro or landscape photography. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did view a downsampled version, at 1200px. The flaws I mention are still easily visible though at that res as well. Point taken about composition > focus and vote modified accordingly. --Muhammad (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support The portrait stands on it's technical merits. To much controversy about the subject, ignoring it's a child actress it's still a technically good high resolution portrait. — raeky ( talk 04:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: decent technical quality and composition, high EV. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. EV is not that high. Her brief article doesn't have a single reference and it seems debatable if she even meets WP:ENTERTAINER. According to IMDB, she's been in a few episodes of a soap opera and was a supporting actress in a kid's movie. We're not talking Shirley Temple here. Plus the weird pose doesn't make for a compelling image, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While the article exists, I think it's pretty safe to assume that a portrait of the subject automatically has EV. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be a strong case for taking the article to AfD, per the arguments you've given Kaldari. I don't agree about a lack of EV, however. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

'''If the article us put up for AfD, closing of this nomination will be delayed until the outcome. Continue voting, ignoring article issues (as it can't pass without being in an article anyway). Shoemaker's Holiday''' Over 213 FCs served 14:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that should be rephrased as "If there is anyone here today who knows of any reason why this article, and this image, should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace."... I don't see why it's productive to wait indefinitely for someone to decide to put it up for AfD... &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They have until such time as the image is due to close. If the article's not up for AfD by then, then it can be presumed notable. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 214 FCs served 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support per nom. Fine expression, middling composition (per example at right).  Looking over this discussion today, it's interesting to compare the time stamps versus the nomination that immediately followed.  Could it be possible that running a female nude shortly afterward might have thrown this discussion off kilter?  If so, any disruption was entirely unintentional.  Durova  339 04:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh My... I actually had not made that association. Besides, I stirred the hornet's nest (completely unintentionally) with my comment before you posted that image. I think I am going to have to take a look at those arguments again with this in mind. You filthy perverts! LOL...  Nezzadar   ☎   06:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank god this mess is over. Ha ha ha. Wow. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)