Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Lazarus Effect film poster.jpeg

The Lazarus Effect (film)
Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 05:08:28 (UTC)
 * Reason:high technical standard, high res, "illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more", free license (via OTRS), illustrates the article, captioned, not adapted
 * Articles in which this image appears:The Lazarus Effect (film)
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture (cat may be wrong; feel free to fix)
 * Creator:Jonx Pillemer, The Persuaders, LLC.


 * Support as nominator --  Chzz  ► 05:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I would normally straight out oppose a picture of this quality, it has massive jpg artifacts and just isn't visually interesting, that and it appears to be blatant promotion of a film. I do note the statement you left on Jimbo's page, can you give us the reasoning for nominating this picture? Because this image is not of "high technical standard." Also does the OTRS cover the picture she's holding as well? — raeky ( talk 13:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The person sending the email appears to have had authority to equally release the poster (and was going to do so at first), and so certainly has authority to release a photo containing the poster. They are a representative of the company that owns the film (and, equally, promotional material). I've not read it in-depth, but that's my reading of the ticket. J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood, now the question on the quality? Is this to be treated like any other regular FPC? It has _heavy_ compression artifacts which would preclude it from being a FP under normal criteria... — raeky ( talk 16:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I would normally be inclined to have slightly lower standards for publicity photos, as we have so few freely released (in fact, I think we only have FPs of two modern ones, and I nominated them both). Also, of course, I have a soft-spot for OTRS acquired images. However, this is not a publicity photo per se, it is a photograph of an actress holding a publicity poster. As such, I think it is more comparable to our portraits. Either way, compared to portraits for actors (Clooney, Shea, Wynter) or compared to our publicity shots for film/television (Dustbin Baby, Big & Small) this just isn't good enough, in my eyes. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Important subject. But I don’t see how this is an FP-quality picture. It looks quite unremarkable. Greg L (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not a photography expert, but when I look at this at full res, I am unimpressed by its technical quality.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm also going to oppose here too, this does not meet our technical standards. — raeky ( talk 14:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Greg and Raeky... Gazhiley (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Sorry --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 07:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  T · C 13:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Closed per WP:SNOW.  Jujutacular  T · C 13:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)