Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 00:42:38 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is a high quality and high EV image
- Articles in which this image appears
- Wesley Clark
List of awards and nominations received by Wesley Clark
Oklahoma Democratic primary, 2004
Valedictorian
1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
Kosovo War
Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2004
United States presidential election, 2004
List of United States Military Academy alumni
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe
Democratic Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008
Democratic Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008 - FP category for this image
- People
- Creator
- United States Army
- Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm normally happy to support pictures like this (unlike many) but this one is really, really dusty. What's the deal with that? J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Is that something that the graphics lab can correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would strongly suspect it wouldn't be too difficult a job. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have made a request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would strongly suspect it wouldn't be too difficult a job. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Is that something that the graphics lab can correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a classic image of a member of the U.S. military. The studio setup is a generic one. There are literally millions of pictures of exactly this same quality and depth of field, etcetera, and it utterly escapes me how this can be regarded as one of Wikipedia’s best works and be set aside for special treatment. In the context of the Wesley Clark article, I would support this image for WP:VPC. Greg L (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think there are that many that are in use in WP in support of encyclopedic content as effectively. The EV of this image in its current uses is well above average compared to those millions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- You name the modern-day general, and we’ve usually got one of these generic military portraits. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there isn’t a written MIL-SPEC-like specification describing how to set up the photo studio for these images. Note that Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria has a eight-point test; adding encyclopedic value is #5. All I’m saying is it utterly escapes me how one of these exceedingly generic military portraits satisfies point #3 (Is among Wikipedia's best work) and, given that the scan is so dusty I can’t see that it remotely passes #1 (Is of a high technical standard); I also find the contrast a bit flat. If I was 20 years old, I could summarize my response as: “Dude… it’s one of those military portraits and it isn’t even a clean scan.” Greg L (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I understand. I am just putting the better images in WP:CHICAGO FAs and GAs out here for discussion, which will fall how ever it falls. Thanks for taking the time to consider this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- You name the modern-day general, and we’ve usually got one of these generic military portraits. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there isn’t a written MIL-SPEC-like specification describing how to set up the photo studio for these images. Note that Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria has a eight-point test; adding encyclopedic value is #5. All I’m saying is it utterly escapes me how one of these exceedingly generic military portraits satisfies point #3 (Is among Wikipedia's best work) and, given that the scan is so dusty I can’t see that it remotely passes #1 (Is of a high technical standard); I also find the contrast a bit flat. If I was 20 years old, I could summarize my response as: “Dude… it’s one of those military portraits and it isn’t even a clean scan.” Greg L (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think there are that many that are in use in WP in support of encyclopedic content as effectively. The EV of this image in its current uses is well above average compared to those millions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Don't know if it will make much difference now but the dust has been removed and the contrast has been increased slightly. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 20:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- That was one of the dustiest scans I have ever seen. I’ve cleaned Edit2 (at right) some more. If his uniform had that much dust on it real life, he’d be peeling potatoes for two days. I still have to vote ‘oppose’ for one of the reasons stated above. Greg L (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Certainly a notable subject, but awkward composition and expression. FPC usually expects a higher standard of modern formal portraits. Durova412 23:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose It's only an average quality image, and questionable EV. The dust and poor focus are only small issues in comparison to the fact that there are plenty of images of the subject that are better.Afrazn Beauti (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose As the author of the Wesley Clark article I love having a high-res image like this to lead things off, but given the clear consensus on generic government portraits (I fought this battle for a while with the Obama portrait) this isn't up to FP standards. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I definitely suggest nominating this at WP:VPC. NauticaShades 10:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)