Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017-11-16 Niklas Schrader by Sandro Halank.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:2017-11-16 Niklas Schrader by Sandro Halank.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2017 at 22:44:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Sandro Halank - uploaded by Sandro Halank - nominated by Sandro Halank -- Sandro Halank (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Nice portrait, but in view of the remarks about another portrait of a politician that was recently withdrawn after substantial opposition, what is particularly noteworthy about this politician? He seems to be a legislator in Berlin Land, not the Federal legislature. Is he very well-known nationally? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)- Comment This candidature looks similar to that one -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Just my two cents: to my eyes the crop is too tight at the bottom and leaves too much space on the top though if cropped correctly counted in pixels the space above the hair would probably stay around the same. And composition-wise he's standing turned to his left i.e. positioned in an article on wikipedia his view goes right away from the text. I prefer a person's body (or view) leading towards the center of the page. It's not always achievable, but I can arrange that for projects like wiki loves parliaments. --Granada (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There are 159 photos at Category:Wiki loves parliaments/Landtagsprojekt Berlin 2017/Portraits (though some appear to be just crops of others). Are we to expect 100+ FPs? If this is the finest such photo, then please can you say why? Otherwise I don't think the requirement to be "featured as among our finest" is met. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - The respect of some Wikimedian other users is once again shockingly unruly, unobjective and altogether pathetic. I am ashamed to participate again in this project and to be recognized with some of you as an employee in a project. Sorry Sandro, that you have to stand those inhuman people. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have any substantive rejoinder to the comments made in this thread, or do you just like using extreme language for the hell of it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Marcus, could you stick to judging the photo, as we have. If you want to play divisive politics then Facebook and Twitter is where you need to go. -- Colin (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Again, as with the other photo, it's a fine piece of work, but I just don't see anything special about it. There's no "wow factor". As such it should have the QI and VI status, but I'm not seeing this becoming an FP.--Peulle (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)- Oppose Since nobody, including the nominator, has suggested any reason why this is among our finest, rather than just a good wikipedia-identity-photo. -- Colin (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin; I wish this discussion could be purely about technical and aesthetic images rather than perceived ulterior motives of the nominator. Daniel Case (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 15:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
