Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Skepchickal

Skepchickal edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 May 2014 at 19:53:09 (UTC)

Original – From the photographer Sage Ross: "I remember laughing and talking and laughing and talking at Wikimania 2012. I took this picture of her that she used for a long while as a profile pic. Someone on Facebook said it looked 'skepchickal', which she loved."

Reason: High EV, high quality photograph, free-use licensed by Ragesoss, no unnecessary digital manipulation.
Articles in which this image appears: Adrianne Wadewitz
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Ragesoss

Support as nominator – — Cirt (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The caption above is the same as used previously at "Community mourns passing of Adrianne Wadewitz". — Cirt (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate that people want to memorialize Wadewitz, but I don't really think that this photo is FP quality. It cuts to blur too quickly, the left-side background is distracting, and I don't like the half-shadow on the face. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sven Manguard: Is there a way you could suggest specific recommendations on how the photograph could be edited so you feel it could be improved in quality? — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not the person to ask on questions of photo editing; I own a DSLR that I barely know how to use, and have never edited a RAW file. I'm not sure it's possible to correct some of the lighting issues once the photo has been taken though. This is also Sven Manguard 19:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood, no worries. — Cirt (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Sven. This is a useful photo of a much-respected and greatly missed member of our community, but I'm afraid it simply isn't a FP standard portrait: the lighting and composition aren't great, the background is distracting and there doesn't appear to be any offsetting unique EV. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agreed, lighting, pose and depth of field are all sub-par. Objectively speaking, it's not one of our best portraits. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]