Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nataliya Gotsiy

Nataliya Gotsiy

 * Reason:And now for something completely different..... This image is really an amazing example of the little fashion photography we have on Wikipedia. It is very hard to get good fashion photography here, because most people can't go to major fashion shows, and even if they could they would rarely get to take photos from the locations at which you could get a decent angle to capture the entire model's body head-on (which I imagine are basically entirely reserved for professional photographers). This is a decently important runway model (she does about thirty-five shows a season) modeling for a major US designer at New York Fashion Week (one of the four major fashion weeks).  The "original" nominated has already been edited by Mikaul; the true original is at Image:Gotsiy3.jpg if anyone is interested.
 * Articles this image appears in:Model (person), Fashion show, New York Fashion Week, Nataliya Gotsiy
 * Creator:Peter Duhon


 * Support as nominator Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Beautiful image. --Carioca (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * support. wish the background was bit lighter compared to her though. aside: She looks high. de Bivort 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably artistic detachment rather than pipe dreaming, but you can never really be sure with these model types.. --mikaultalk 10:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Cacophony (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for rarity, as much as anything. The series it comes from are not top quality but are extremely difficult to find freely licensed. This one is the stand-out capture among them, great position, pose, lighting and actually in focus! --mikaultalk 09:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-01-25 14:10Z
 * Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I hate to bust up the party. As fashion photography this is decidedly suboptimal because nearly the entire black dress is minimally contrasted against a dark background.  Her face looks like an eyelash got caught behind a contact lens and she can't wait to make a beeline for the ladies' room.  I realize freely licensed material is difficult to come by in this field.  Yet the actual commercial life of this type of image is extremely short-lived, and our interents are photographic quality and encyclopedic value.  Since this is a competitive field, there are likely to be professionals who would be willing to relicense portfolio shots if they understood the mutual benefits.  That would be better than reserving space on the main page of Wikipedia for a shot that would be unlikely to earn space at a minor pictorial of an mediocre fashion magazine.  Durova Charge! 09:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, in answer to your second complaint about this picture, I don't really think that is an issue. As can be seen by the other photograph on this woman's page, it would seem that sort of expression is the norm for her. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Puffy lids, red eyes = allergies? Durova Charge! 00:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's just not one of those pictures that stops me in thought and puts me at awh, you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.92.76 (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vote, 24.91.92.76. However, in FPC discussions, IP users are not given suffrage. If you wish to participate in the discussion, please create an account. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC) PS: Support for above reasons.
 * Weak oppose; picture quality is there, but I don't think black clothes against a dark background is a good idea. If she was wearing light-coloured clothes, then maybe...maybe. -- Altiris   Helios   Exeunt  08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support why not? Black is classic.  Her shoes are gray, :).--Riurik(discuss) 06:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't care for this picture, it certainly wouldn't draw me into reading any articles. Rudy Breteler (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with you Rudy Breteler. gppande (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)