Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Image:PortraitGirl2005-1.jpg
Your last nomination was not violently kicked-off for being a “non-exotic” human portrait, but for quality issues. Oh, and it actually was not kicked-off, but you withdrew the nomination (admitting to the quality issues). this was explained in the votes. This picture however is quite a bit better. --Dschwen 14:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I would like to believe in that but the lack of quality does not justify, by itself, such a violent reaction from so many users (4 in 7). The fact is (like you also use to say) human pictures have usually a hard time here and I would to understand why. Alvesgaspar 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that a portrait has an upward battle to satisfy usefulness criteria. If the subject is of a famous subject, then it is quite useful because it can be used an article on that particular subject. But if the subject is an unknown, then we must look elsewhere for usefulness. There must be some other aspect. It's not within the project scope to just be a pure stock photography site without regard to the subject. The "Girl and Cat" photo that you link to has more useful content than this one, but you can feel free to argue how this might be useful, or better yet, add it to a few articles and show us how it can be useful. Otherwise, it's just one of many possible portraits with very limited usefulness. What is the purpose of this picture? Is it highlighting a particular race or culture? Is it highlighting a particular hair style? There are many options, but the image description does not asssert its importance. -- Ram-Man 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I will answer your questions with another one. Why were all these pictures featured (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7): because the persons are famous, exotic or particularly ugly or beautiful, or illustrate particularly well some interesting situation? Maybe so, but those are not the main reasons. They were featured because they show intense or familiar human expressions, something we are able to appreciate and analyse in its most little details. Is such a theme useful and valuable for an encyclopaedia? Right now I’m much more interested in answering to that question than to promote my own picture. Alvesgaspar 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I partially disagree. A picture needs to have both usefulness and some intense or familar emotional expressions. Looking at your examples, all of them have some aspect of emotional connection. They also have useful content:
- An iraqi militiaman.
- A poor boy in a garbage dump.
- Becak driver.
- Homeless man
- Famous individual
- Refugee scene
- Nama Woman in Kalahari Desert.
- The images are about a career, a way of life, an ethnic group, an important historical moment, or a famous individual. All these aspects make the images useful in addition to their emotional appeal. Of course the technical quality is pretty good in most of them as well. I require usefulness, expressiveness, and technical quality for a portrait before it can be a FP. It's usually pretty obvious whether or not it has the expressiveness required, but it's not always obvious if it is useful and stands apart from others in its category. If an image doesn't satisfy the general usefulness, it better be extremely powerful as an expresive tool. Usually this is accomplished by an expression paired with a proper surrounding and/or clothing, which many of those pictures have. -- Ram-Man 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*
Support This nice kid represents the (our) future, thats why it is very useful for wikipedia. And because of: BREAK THE RULES! --Makro Freak 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Break the rules? Which rules? The rules that are alledged by some whiny nomination talk? --Dschwen 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway, I'd almost support this (congrats to your kid by the way :-) ). The composition is bothering me a tiny bit. The eyes are to low, and as a consequence there is a little too much space on top of the head
