Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Richard Allen Anderson

Richard Allen Anderson

 * Reason:I think it is a high quality image
 * Articles this image appears in:Richard Allen Anderson
 * Creator:uploaded by ERcheck


 * Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not really a good enough reason for the nomination IMO. Seems to have low notability other than that he won the Medal of Honor - one of 250 in the Vietnam War alone. The image itself is of very poor quality for the era so I don't see the possible historic value of it as saving this one. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention the recieving the Medal of Honor is in itself notable and that only an extremely small percentage of the personnel from any war receive it and even then it is usually received posthumously. Aside from perhaps being a bad image it is historically notible. --Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not notable enough though. If this was the only image available of someone who stood out as being the greatest hero of the Vietnam War in some way, then it would be fair to be a little more lenient towards image quality, but my point is that this guy is among 250 other MOH awardees. It's a significant award, of course, but it doesn't forgive the image quality. That was the point I was originally making. In any case, what made you select this image for FPC? Lots of the MOH awardees seem to have similar quality images. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I submitted several before that I thought where good, that turned out to be bad because they didn't have the perfect light or background noise or whatever so I thought I would try with this one that had obviously been touched up. To be honest with you I don't really think that this FP vetting process is well suited to images of people, and certainly not an image that was taken more than about ten years aho when high quality digital images became easily available to the masses. That is why we have dozens of images of buildings and wildlife and less then 20 of military people. Sure we have a couple, but in order to get those we had to clean them up using gimp or photoshop so really they are less an image as they are an art project. Oppose the image on quality if you wish but opposing it on the grounds of notibility is ridiculous. If he is notable to have an article in WP then he's notable enough to have a FP. BTW I have already attempted to submit all of the MOH recipient images that were decent and only 1 made it through and even then only after it had been cleansed of noise. --Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that portraits do have a difficult time getting through, and particularly historical ones, but that's because they're often poorly taken, or poorly scanned. And I didn't oppose based on notability, I merely commented that if it were exceptionally rare or documented something particularly important, then I would consider lowering the bar on the technical requirements. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose on technicals per Diliff. However, I disagree with Diliff about "non-notability" being a sensible reason to oppose the nomination- the subject has an article.  Article subjects are either notable or non-notable; illustrations are judged based on whether they effectively illustrate the subject--notability of the subject is beside the point when evaluating the image.  Spikebrennan (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you got my point then, despite me stating it probably 3 times above ;-). I didn't say non-notability was a sensible reason to oppose, I said the lack of strong notability means that it isn't exempt from our usual technical requirements. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Doesn't meet the featured picture criteria. In particular, it fails #1 as it isn't of a high technical standard and #3 as a posed portrait like this isn't very compelling. It's clearly a very useful picture for the article, but it isn't of FP standard. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

-- wadester 16  03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)