A good picture, but I think it needs some editing.
- Nominated by
- Muhammad(talk) 07:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- I'd like to see what others think. It doesn't strike me as a particularly dynamic portrait of the man. It looks a bit unbalanced, perhaps taken a bit from his left, and also seemingly from a bit above - it may not be an issue, but it just makes me wonder why. The background is also not the best, especially with that piece of material running up the left of the image. Other opinions, or more reasons for why you think it's particularly good? --jjron (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The internet does not have any photographhs of this person. Some people are of the opinion he doesnt exist! This picture is thus very encyclopedic despite the minor flaws. The piece of material can be photoshopped of, right? Any other concerns? Muhammad(talk) 15:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are experienced at FPC, Muhammad. You know that encyclopedic value alone does not make a featured picture. Yes, this is a high resolution image, yes, the person's face is very clear, but the background and the glare off of the wrinkled white shirt together kill its chances of being a featured pictures. It's a great contribution to the encyclopedia, but not great to look at, and the not-great to look at part is completely unrelated to its encyclopedic value. - Enuja (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. The photograph isn't of any notable technical standard, and I would hardly count it among Wikipedia's best work. Also, all three photos seem rather busy, the other elements distract from the main subject (especially the last two). Good for an article illustration though.--DMCer™ 10:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seconder