Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prachtig meisje.jpg

File:Prachtig meisje.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2011 at 17:22:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Prachtig meisje.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prachtig meisje.jpg

•  Info created by Alex Buiter - uploaded by Andre Engels - nominated by TwoWings -- TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --MyCanon (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Daniel Åhs Karlsson 12:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- I can't see any educational value in this picture other than the beauty of the child. Purely artsy pictures have little chance of success here. Image quality is on the poor side too. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Well, it's a great illustration of children's facial expressions (therefore educational) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  Barely, in my opinion. The educational value of the picture would be greater if the whole head were depicted, image quality were better and some information were given on the age, region and ethny of the child. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  You'll have to explain to me how some more visible hair could bring something more to show a facial expression ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I don't know because I didn't see it yet. But there is much more in a portrait of a child than the expression of the eyes. Remember, Commons is a repository of useful media, not an art gallery. Browsing the existing FP of children may help to understand what I mean. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  I respect your POV but I strongly disagree. If you need to illustrate a child's facial expression, you don't need a wider shot (actually a wider shot may be less efficient for that). And that picture is also a great example for illustrating what a artistic photographic portrait can be. Last thing : I'm sometimes disappointed to see that "quality", on Commons, means "stereotypical" and/or "normative" (cityscapes have to be sunny, portraits have to be standard...), as if nothing else could be of quality. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• I won't comment further on the subjective matters. But "quality" on Commons is more or less well defined in here. Yes, it is possible to challenge some of those rules and get out with some extraordinary creation (that is what many artists - not all, btw - have done and continue to do). But that way seldom works with ordinary people... Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose As Alvesgaspar. And what about parents' consent? พ.s. 11:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  Parents' consent ? For such an innocent picture ? Do we really need that ? And BTW, should we ask parents' agreement for all the childhood pictures we have ?!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  After vote comment: I believe it's the photographers own child. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Support--Miguel Bugallo 00:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Alvesgaspar, and bad crop on top.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 20:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Celia Ascenso (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)