Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, 2009

Jesse Jackson, 2009 edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2010 at 00:05:52 (UTC)

Original - Jesse Jackson speaking at the University of Chicago in 2009

Edit White balance and NR

Reason: This is a very high quality expressive photo that has high EV as the main image in his biography.
Articles in which this image appears: Jesse Jackson
Karin Stanford
Terri Schiavo case
2002 white supremacist terror plot
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Eric Guo; cropped by Beyond My Ken

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The color is WAY wrong, whoever cropped it from what I presume was the original (File:Jesse_Jackson_at_Max_Palevsky_Cinema.jpg) did something to vastly oversaturate the image, way to much yellow. His real skin color ([1]) doesn't look like hes about to die of jaundice. Plus this isn't a very flattering portrait and didn't we just promote a picture of him? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Can the color be corrected by recropping from the original or other Graphics Lab techniques?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regarding the 1983 FA. The 2009 image is used in very different contexts. This one is the main image in his bio.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm doubtful one of the graphic artists could correct the color sufficiently, but that still doesn't solve the other issues: that hes all sweaty and shiny, thus unflattering, and that hes already been recognized recently with a FPC. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can easily add more issues, JPG artifacts and small file size. Considering this is a modern photograph of him, and as far as I know isn't dead yet, it's reproducible, so our technical standards would be very high for a portrait of a modern person. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - And how is this picture improving this stub? Karin Stanford? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As far as Karin Stanford goes, I could speak to you left hand guys at FPC as the right hand, but I have shown you a bunch of examples of what they want at places like FAC and FLC and you guys seem to fail to understand what the right hand is doing even when I explain it to you. An image deprived article like this is considered improved by an image like this at all quality review processes (PR, GAC, FAC, FLC) except FPC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I would think a picture of her would be more relevent for the article then someone she had an affair with, this image was taken in the oval office, therefore likely PD, if you find the source and crop it, you got a picture of her. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to have missed the point. Even now this is not presented as a main image. It is a supporting image and clearly illustrative in its current use. She is only notable because of him. If she was any regular person's baby's momma, she would not have a WP page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm befuddled as to how you can keep claiming we're all a bunch of clueless gits who don't know how to edit articles and you're trying to show us how to do it properly, when your article edits keep making fundamental errors such as misspelling the key people's names and shoving images onto the left side of pages for no conceivable reason. Surely the honourable right hand (?) people at FAC & GAC, etc, don't think the only image in an article should be clumsily placed onto the left side of the article? I've said it before - can you please spend more time getting this basic stuff right and less time telling everyone else why they're wrong and you're right; that will do much more to improve Wikipedia. --jjron (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The image was on the left to leave room for an infobox and/or main image of the subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Have to agree, the white balance was pretty out of wack, though the edit doesn't feel perfect (the shadows seem a bit green around the hairline in particular).The amount of noise is much higher than I would have expected from a 40D at iso 1000. I'm guessing it was underexposed at the time then pushed later in post processing. I did a noise reduction, but I'm not sure something this small and noisy would ordinarily pass. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the quality ain’t there, don’t despair. Greg L (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m really looking for some reason to think this on-the-fly photo of an individual is head & shoulders above other such images. It just sort of looks similar to your generic shot when an AP photographer took a picture as Jesse was gesturing; that’s not remarkable. Greg L (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit. I can get behind this, but I have no strong feelings. Not a bad portrait, but it is a little snap-shotty. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose J Milburn’s observation mirrors my own: “a little snap-shotty.” When deciding whether a picture deserves FP status, I can draw an analogy to a chef’s contest: “Tastes a bit like Campbell’s Chicken Noodle soup” isn’t what I would call a ‘big endorsement’ for handing out four or five stars in a French cooking contest. Greg L (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The edit has a high technical standard, but I agree with J Milburn and Greg L. It tastes like sanp-shot chicken noodle. Gut Monk (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]