Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Barack Obama Portrait
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2010 at 21:22:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- This meets all of the criteria, with glaring marks in most.
- Articles in which this image appears
- There are literally hundreds, here is the main one. Barack Obama
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People
- Creator
- Hoshie
- Support as nominator --Iankap99 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Previous nominations: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Official portrait of Barack Obama and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Obama official portrait. Bear in mind however that consensus can change. Jujutacular T · C 06:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Two nominations ago, mikaul said the following about this portrait. I think it still stands. NauticaShades 10:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
| “ | <puts down pipe, strokes beard> I wasn't going to elaborate too much, just point out the formal reasons why this is a disaster of a formal portrait, but seeing as you ask... with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, almost any other US presidential portrait (given a suitable file) would be way preferable. The best comparison is probably the Reagan one, if only because the Obama one has obviously been based heavily on it. In Reagan's portrait, the President was photographed in time-honoured dignitary style. He's integrated with his surroundings, appears relaxed and assured, is positioned naturally with shoulders facing slightly into the frame, head slightly to one side, further "involving" him in the scene. Lighting is strong and direct (are you getting all these jaded art critic metaphors?) with backlighting to bring him forward, head close to the top of the frame to enhance apparent stature. Obama, by direct comparison, is a shrinking, isolated figure, with ordinary brolly-and-reflector lighting, facing front-on to the camera as if he were in a photo-booth, not the White House waiting room. Reagan was shot on film (of course) so it has grain at 100% (of course) so it would never impress those who equate high-resolution digital reproduction with technical expertise. But it's a vastly superior portrait from a photographic point of view and is much more deserving of FP status for the encyclopedia. You describe the ENC problem with this nomination exactly when you say within the bounds of what this photograph tries to be, it is a good portrait. That's not the point of FPC, surely, and actually not true, to boot. mikaultalk 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC) | ” |
- There are issues with the Regan photograph, he has an uncomfortable forced smile, as well as other issues, but this is not the place to discuss an already featured picture is it? --Iankap99 (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- He was comparing Reagan's portrait to this one, to explain how this one is deficient. Fletcher (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- There are issues with the Regan photograph, he has an uncomfortable forced smile, as well as other issues, but this is not the place to discuss an already featured picture is it? --Iankap99 (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose was my previous !vote. I still think we should insist on a better portrait of possibly the most photographed guy in the world. Fletcher (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support Almost anything is better than the current Obama FP (
).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC) - Support Provided () is delisted, I do agree that is a horrid portrait. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose It's such an awkward pose- both sides of his torso aren't shown. I'm sure that a better one will surface. I'd also vote to delist (), which I'm sure is not the best photo that we can come up with. -- mcshadypl TC 02:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Guys, guys, guys, can you please open a delist and replace nom for this? Interpreting the consensus when some people's votes are *conditional* on some other outcome that is not going to be contemporaneous is going to be a headache. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Just about everyone has seen this picture before. I think Featured Pictures are a great way to showcase photos that people do not normally look at. Haljackey (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Low notability is not a condition of a Featured Picture. --Iankap99 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, utterly ridiculous. Are you saying we shouldn't be featuring images of famous artwork? Famous historical photos? Absolute nonsense. J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- And your thoughts on the Portrait?--Iankap99 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- None at this time; I may well express an opinion later. J Milburn (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- And your thoughts on the Portrait?--Iankap99 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, utterly ridiculous. Are you saying we shouldn't be featuring images of famous artwork? Famous historical photos? Absolute nonsense. J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd almost never suggest that someone's comment or oppose "vote" be ignored but at least give a criticism of the image (per the FPC guidelines) otherwise you're just trolling. Cat-five - talk 03:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Low notability is not a condition of a Featured Picture. --Iankap99 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Jujutacular T · C 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless of the status of the other Obama FP, consensus does not exist here for promotion. No prejudice as to the opening of a delist nomination. Jujutacular T · C 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)