Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/edwards

John Edwards

 * Reason:Image is hopelessly noisy, basically NOTHING is in focus. Way oversampled also. Half of him is coverered in razor-sharp shadows (which is the only thing sharp in this pic). The american flag in the background is barely identifiable as such- the white balance leaves its 50 (52 if you count the strangely double-image ones) blots and long smudges light and dull. The composition is terrible; he's cut off on the left and theres a giant gap between the end of his arm and the right of the image (where his fingers end nobody knows because his overexposed fingertips fade right into the grey of a flag stripe). The sinkers are: the worst-case lighting conditions and the focus on the giant blur that's probably a microphone.
 * Nominator: ⁪ffroth


 * Delist &mdash; ⁪ffroth  03:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep only been and FP for 4 months - I don't think the standards have changed significantly since it was promoted. de Bivort 03:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But it should never have been promoted in the first place :[ The standards haven't changed, but the image doesn't satisfy the standards of 4 months ago. -- ⁪ffroth 16:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist per nom. Not particularly encyclopedic and the lighting is what led me to oppose in the original nom. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-01-03 14:50Z
 * Delist Lighting is the big drawback; for a politician there must be better photos out there and plenty of chances to get a better shot. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can live with motion blur on the hands. The head is in reasonable focus. I might be inclined to delist to avoid systemic bias in the elections, but unfortunately, that's not one of our criteria. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist I don't mind the out-of-focus flag background, it's a nice effect and perfectly recognizable. The entire composition is excellent.  I just don't like the way the light is falling across his face.  As I said in my original oppose, there should be a lot of public domain photos of candidates to choose from.  --Bridgecross (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with all of the nominator's points and the exaggerated tone of them in particular. Lighting, focus and composition are perfectly fine and the rather high contrast (which amounts to the only legitimate niggle, IMO) is way less important a factor here than the power of the image itself. --mikaultalk 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The composition is just fine as it is, and the quality is pertty good (full ack mikaul!). --Dschwen 02:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any problems with this, I don't understand the what the nominator means by 'way oversampled' this was taken with a 6.3 megapixel DSLR, considering the resolution, it was likely downsampled or cropped, there isn't any evidence of interpolation, the noise is acceptable Thisglad (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think its fairly dynamic and the light isn't terrible. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 13:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think ffroth might need a lie down - his face, hair and microphone, while not perfectly in focus, are very very close. "the giant blur that's probably a microphone" - to be honest, WTF? This is a reasonable picture. To be honest, we're not trying to accurately illustrate the entirety of John Edwards' body with this image, so I doubt that his legs and right elbow are going to add much to picture, especially as they're clad in a plain blue tracksuit. I can also quite clearly see the all of the ends of his fingers. Tried using a different monitor, ffroth? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and I echo the sentiment of some of the folks above that the tone of the delist nom was inappropriate, bordering on UNCIVIL. Matt Deres (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with above. Almost borders on trolling, I'd say... --Janke | Talk 20:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)