Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hadako-tan.png

File:Hadako-tan.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2010 at 00:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Click for image: Hidden because it is sexually explicit

•  Info created by Niabot - uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Niabot (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Please ensure you review against the Featured picture criteria and don't make this into a straw poll on if Commons (or FPC) is censored or should be.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nah! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is somewhat counter-collaborative to propose an image (and insist that this be evaluated on existing standards) just as the community is conducting two discussions that could affect the eligibility of this image. Nevertheless, I'll humour you and give my evaluation based on the existing standards. This falls under "Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents", and so requires:

• High Quality (required): Apparently there is some dispute about this. I would add that the man(?)s legs look like they have a different skin tone to his body (legs have a lot of extra red and purple). The cats tail has a strange section that is much darker than the rest of the cat (apparently due to a glass reflection, but along with many of the reflections in this image, it doesn't look like a typical reflection to me, and anyway if on a photo might be adjudicated as poor lighting due to odd reflections [1]). Also it doesn't look much like a real cat, but perhaps that is part of the style (though not mentioned on the description or in the Wiki article). Many elements of the scene are cut by the edge of the image (chin, ear, clothes, headphone), which in a photograph would probably cause me to critique this image as poorly composed [2]. The woman(?)s eyelashes are on top of her hair, perhaps this is part of the style (please comment??), but her hair edges are then on top of the eyelashes, which must be plain and simple poor quality. Ditto for the hair going under the eye, not mentioned in en wiki's description of the technique.
• Notable in its own right (at least one of the next four required): Obviously not.
• Of high artistic merit: No. This is not from within "the school of art", let alone a "wonderful example", it is apparently an outsiders attempt to illustrate the school of art by emulating it. A fair enough thing to do, but not satisfying this guideline.
• Of high historic merit: Obviously not.
• Of high illustrative merit: Note that in this item the notability of the artistry depends on what it is trying to illustrate. Complex machine mechanisms do not require highly notable artistry, but books do. If you're trying to illustrate an artistic style (as an outside user, rather than just obtaining permission to use an image from within that style), it had better be wonderfully artistically notable! This is not, per my quality comments above.
• Wow/Visual impact (required by me): I have consistently applied this (perhaps to Durova or Adam Cuerdon's despair) to all types of image. This is my personal deviation from the guidelines [3] (Although interestingly it's very clearly included in the full guidelines), since they are after all, only guidelines, not rules about what we have to feature. This scene does not wow me, perhaps this makes me a w:wowser. But hey, if you want to feature to the whole world a picture as an example of our finest, you should choose an image that impresses children, parents, women, men, wowsers and non-wowsers [4]. This is not important in QI, but this is FP.

--99of9 (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose for the same reasons given in the QI nomination - the perspective is strange, and the guy's body proportions don't look quite right. Laurent (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination since the first vote is "Nah!". So i see no way the overall rating would be fair in any way. --Niabot (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)