Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader

 * Reason:Topical image of an influential political figure, and I think it compares well with other FP's of people. This was my first significant outing with my new camera, and I'm pleased with this image.
 * Proposed caption:Consumer advocate and four-time U.S. presidential candidate Ralph Nader spoke before a crowd of protesters near the White House at the September 15, 2007 anti-war protest organized by ANSWER Coalition. During his ten-minute speech, Nader criticized the Iraq War and its relevance to terrorism, and encouraged activists to focus on convincing members of Congress to end the war.  He excoriated the present Congress for failing to impeach President Bush, asking: "How many more impeachable offenses to those spineless, gutless, hapless Democrats need?", and referred to the "stolen" elections of 2000 and 2004.
 * Articles this image appears in:Ralph Nader
 * Creator:User:Ragesoss


 * Support as nominator ragesoss 02:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Erm... what we voting on? I see no image --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  08:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's there, all right. Have you tried purging over at commons? MER-C 11:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Blurry background is distracting, and it kind of looks like he needs some Preparation H. -- Grandpafootsoldier 22:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I can see it now, oppose anyway, distracting background and shadows cast on right side. Not fully sharp either --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  10:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but only due to the lighting. The composition is good.  Spikebrennan 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, just as bad lighting as the John Edwards FPC that was voted in by fanboys. Of course Nader's got no fan base now, so this won't go anywhere, just as it shouldn't. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-09-24 13:57Z
 * Alas, that was my thinking in nominating it: the lighting is not great, but if the John Edwards pic can pass...--ragesoss 14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also oppose for having no (visible) yellow wristband. ;) &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-09-24 15:02Z
 * The John Edwards pic is many times more dynamic (I suppose it helps that John Edwards is loads more handsome, too), and really wouldn't have been out of place in a TIME magazine spread (it's a bit their style). I'm sure better pics could be (and probably have been) taken of Nader. --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, on the basis that the lighting is actually better than in the John Edwards one; apart from that I'm thinking it's quite sharp and the background is hardly distracting. Schcambo 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose; the background is distracting, and the lighting appears to be in the wrong place. -- Altiris   Helios   Exeunt  10:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose primarily due to shadow on face, but background is distracting and the hand gesture is ... prehensile or something. Unlike the Javier Solana pic, his gesture just looks odd and makes you wonder what he's doing. Maybe if this could get a histogram treatment like the Queen did I'd reconsider. Or if Ragesoss has an alternate version? --Dhartung | Talk 08:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have about 50 alternative versions, but they have similar lighting problems. I'm an amateur at image tweaking, though, so if someone wants to try I can provide alternative shots and/or RAW files.--ragesoss 10:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The lighting is all wrong. Also, unlike the John Edwards FP, with the flag in the background etc, this is a pretty generic picture. -- snowolf D4   (  talk  /  @   ) 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Poor lighting. -- Chris B  •  talk  17:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)