Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mirek Topolanek.jpg

Image:Mirek Topolanek.jpg, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by che to put some people on COM:FPC for a change --che 01:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --che 01:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
•  OpposeThe focus, the quality, the background are great, but the lighting of the man's face is strange and the composition is boring --Mbz1 01:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Oppose Bad lighting, sorry.--Beyond silence 03:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support We need more FP of people... be a little bit more open-handed on those... --Jeses 09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Lerdsuwa 14:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Lighting is not perfect, but then, prime ministers are not as cooperative as some subjects. Ben Aveling 19:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support A great image. Majorly (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's a good, but very ordinary photo; with a bad lighting. Featured images should be nearly perfect, somewhat artistic. I don't think that lowering the quality of FPs is a solution to small number of portraits between them! --Derbeth ^talk 20:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 Comment No. Featured pictures is about 'value', not about quality. Quality is part of value, but a picture can be poor technically, and still be valuable. "Given sufficient 'wow factor' and mitigating circumstances, a Featured Picture is sometimes permitted to fall short on technical quality." Commons:Featured picture candidates#Guidelines for Evaluating Photographs "a technically ordinary picture of an extraordinary subject can be perceived as a better picture than a technically excellent picture of an ordinary subject" Commons:Image guidelines. Important as technical quality is, there are more important things. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but do you really believe that this particular photo contains the "wow factor"? I didn't think "wow" when I first saw this picture. --Derbeth ^talk 09:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tricky question. In it's own right, just as a portrait, no, no it doesn't. But it's not just a portrait of just anybody, it's a prime minister of a reasonably significant nation. Imagine this were a commercial library, would people pay to use this image? I think so. It's not a great photo, but it's a good photo of a 'difficult subject'. The composition is nice, and it shows a lot of detail reasonably well. It shows the man. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Unattractive lighting. --Bergwolf 21:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Derbeth -- Gorgo 21:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Only the tip of the nose is in focus!! Lycaon 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Just made my cut. Lycaon 12:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support, very useful. --Wikimol 00:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Its obvious value does not outweigh its technical shortcomings, I'm afraid. This isn't one of the best images that Commons has to offer. --MichaelMaggs 19:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ack the other opposers. I agree that we need more FP portraits, but lowering the standard for portraits is not the way we should go about achieving it. Anrie 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose lighting please sign to vote valid. Lycaon 20:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose strange lighting -- Bjodr 13:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - 355 KB pic... Dantadd✉ 22:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please say why you are opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose João Felipe C.S 01:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please say why you are opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose poor quality picture of meaningless politician --Karelj 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)