Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Draper

Jesse Draper

Original - American actress Jesse Draper, best known for her role as Jesse, the ditzy maid, on Nickelodeon's television series The Naked Brothers Band and its spin-off films.

Reason: Another nice high-res shot from the photo submissions queue, provided by the subject. High quality, plenty of character (remember that this is someone who is famous for appearing on a kids' show), has all author and copyright info and is a good size.
Articles this image appears in: Jesse Draper
Creator: Prue Hyman, as a work for hire. Owned and released by Jesse Draper.

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially as per File:Nardwuar1-photo-rgb NR.jpg, this displays the subject in her own style which has added EV (rather than just a surly portrait). Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. EV = Quality of image x Rarity of image x Notability of subject. 10 x 10 x 0 = 0. Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree with your equation. The final term has to be a 0 or 1. Since there is an article devoted to the subject of hte image, that term has to be 1. Now, were that article to be deleted as non-notable... 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Completely flawed. Would you be opposing photographs of rare plants and animals because less has been written about them than other plants and animals? If the subject is notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia, they are notable enough to have a featured picture. We frequently get complaints about the fact that FAs are on minor topics, and people are always told that articles are chosen on their merits, not on the merits of their subject- the belief that FAs and other featured content should be based on the subject rather than the content shows a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further, in response to 75.41..., this article won't be deleted- a quick Google News search shows there is coverage out there, and major roles on all those films is worth something too, according to our guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was his point, that barring deletion (which won't happen), the subject is notable. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as suggesting that deletion was a viable option, but yes, I think we're agreed on the basic point here. J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per nom. WP:FPC works on the assumption that if something is notable enough to have an article, it is notable enough to be illustrated. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Not crazy about the white background, but this may be customary for this kind of publicity shot. The subject has an article so notability is not an issue. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. White background on a human is a rare technique for reasons demonstrated below. It messes with visual color and light perception too much. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 01:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be happier about this being a FA, if there were more inline references in the article to establish the notability beyond doubt. At the present time all of the "Personal life" section should be deleted promptly, because there is no obvious verification. Snowman (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's not perfect, but I don't have time to work on it right now- I'll see what I can do about it if there are concerns. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like, among other things, the harsh lighting on the left side, the white background, and the blurriness of that thing on her headband. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 15:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can get behind other personality photos but this one isn't in the same league. There's nothing compelling here, lighting is amateurish and the pose is wooden, there's no expression in the eyes and technically it looks like a hobbyist studio shot (f14?) with the concomitant nowhere-focussing and lame hand-on-hip stance. No matter how many boxes it ticks, it simply doesn't represent outstanding content. mikaul^talk 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the nominators rationale. This looks like a quality "character" image to me. Cowtowner (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no real value to this picture. Don't get me wrong, it's a great shot of a TV personality. But I feel She is not a notable one.Tim1337 (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While we have an article, she is to be considered notable enough. We're judging the picture, not the person. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per others --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a boring, posed publicity shot and the white background and what seems to be bright light on her right elbow mean its not of a good technical standard. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too twee and too ... pink, given that there is no background colour. It just isn't an outstanding image of her. --JN 466 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Zoo Fari^{Thank you Wikipedia!} 01:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]