Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Thomas Sangster

Thomas Sangster
Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2010 at 23:56:06 (UTC)
 * Reason:I was having a think about my ill-advised delist nomination, and by chance (after some confusion about who played who in a television episode...) I came across this portrait. The composition and technicals are extremely aesthetically pleasing, eye-catching and compelling. The quality is good, and it meets our minimum size requirements (just).
 * Articles in which this image appears:Thomas Sangster, Ferb Fletcher
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
 * Creator:Caroline Bonarde Ucci


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think the angle portrays him very well. I know the actor very well and I struggled to identify him at first. -- bydand • talk  09:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hair cut, eyes, skintone... They all look pretty accurate to me. Remember this was taken four years ago, and that is clearly labelled in the article. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I agree, the angle is awkward and very distracting. The background is also too much out of focus IMO. Secret Saturdays   ( talk to me )  16:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The first point is perfectly valid, but you're concerned that the background is out of focus? Of course the background is out of focus... J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support I'm usually neutral with portraits, but I sort of like this. I think the angle is artistic, I like that the background is blurred because you can focus more on the subject, which is mostly and acceptably, I think, sharp. It looks like something I would expect to see in WP:Featured pictures. The angle could be better. --I'ḏ ♥ One 21:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is nothing at all wrong with this picture. It is just fine so far as informal portraits go. However, we have a year-long backlog of pictures that have been awarded FP status and are sitting the queue, waiting for their 24 hours on the Main Page; I think we can afford to be pickier. Though this picture is sharp and has an interesting brightness about it, it just doesn’t strike me as something that would be “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” My impression of this picture ignores the idiosyncrasy of the competing light sources on the kid where we have green-tinted hair and pink skin; that wasn’t a deciding factor for me here. Greg L (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above (and this is nothing to do with this image, which I'm close to withdrawing) this isn't really a valid reason to oppose. If you are concerned about the process/criteria/other "meta" issues, then the talk page is the place. I think you should strike your votes of this sort and start a discussion on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I don’t think it is sufficiently “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article”, then that’s perfectly valid. Greg L (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is. What you said first is not- PotD is a separate process/project to FPC. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are getting all wrapped around the axle over my mentioning that the queue is a year long. As they say in the military: “so sad – too bad.” I suggest you just not stare at that paragraph. The part of my vote comment that is as legitimate as anyone else’s around here is the second paragraph, where I wrote Though this picture is sharp and has an interesting brightness about it, it just doesn’t strike me as something that would be “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” That “eye-catching” business is the first sentence of the FPC criteria upon which we may judge pictures. And, again, I’m not holding his green hair against this image (though I could imagine someone else citing that as an additional reason to oppose). Greg L (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Like I said, that's a perfectly reasonable, perfectly legitimate vote. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, we have to expect as more content is added to wikipedia that we'll be promoting more featured content then we can feature on the main page, FA's are likely suffering the same issue, we promote more of those per week then 7. To oppose based on this, or to restrict ourselves to less than 7 per week is a bit silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raeky (talk • contribs) 11:56, 2 August 2010
 * FA has had the same problem for literally years. I have three featured articles, one promoted 2007, and none have hit the main page. J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose An interesting portrait, but I don't think this angle is best, as others have pointed out you can't tell who it is at first glance, and thats important for a good portrait, even though I've never heard of this person before seeing this image. — raeky  T  11:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, not gonna pass. I guess I was just interested to see how this did. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)