Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ségo

Ségo edit

Original - French politician Ségolène Royal, the candidate of the French Socialist Party during that country's 2007 presidential election, in which Ms. Royal was defeated by Nicolas Sarkozy

Edit1 - crop to 3:4 to remove distracting elements from RHS, and noise reduction.

Reason: Nice PD portrait
Articles this image appears in: Ségolène Royal, Nicolas Sarkozy, French presidential election, 2007
Creator: Jastrow (Marie-Lan Nguyen)

Support as nominator --Spikebrennan (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added Edit1 to address obvious issues with distracting elements and noise. Mfield (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there any bigger res? M.K. (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the picture is not sharp.--Caspian blue 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: What encyclopedic value does this hold? As far as I can tell, it's just a regular picture. – Jerry^teps 11:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you appreciate encyclopedic value. It is simply the extent to which the image illustrates its subject. This clearly does that. Would be appropriate in a print encyclopedia like Britannica? Clearly yes. Therefore encyclopedic. de Bivort 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What encyclopedic content does this hold other than illustrating Ségolène Royal? Just because it's a picture used for an infobox does not mean it's a featured picture. – Jerry^teps 21:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that just because it is in an info box it isn't a featured picture. However, it illustrates the subject of an article so it has encyclopedic value. What else other than illustrating Segolene Royal would it have to show in order for you to think it has EV. --Leivick (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't illustrate anything other than Sed. But she is the only subject. And since it illustrates her clearly -> high enc. de Bivort 05:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I think images of important figures have plenty of encyclopedic value. Although I think the quality of this particular image is just below standards (A tiny bit soft after the noise removal and a little on the small side). --Leivick (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]