Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barack Michelle.jpg

File:Barack Michelle.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 10:06:31

•  Info created by vargas2040 - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Reportell -- 75.72.123.149 10:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- 75.72.123.149 10:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Please log in to vote. Yann (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, The file has less than 2 MP TonyBallioni (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Actually, I think in this case, there would be mitigating reasons enough (high quality free pictures of them aren't easy to come by after all, and it does have 1.6 Mpx) if it weren't for the lack of color once again. Why people rob their pictures of color before uploading is beyond me. I cannot imagine a single situation where this would add to the image, and if needed for any reason it can be done by everyone with Photoshop at any time - but it can never be undone. -- JovanCormac 12:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Agree with JovanCormac, its an image of great value, and it's not that small that it should be considered to be not good enough. colour would be better, but still an excellent image. Julielangford (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Okay, I'll actually take action here: The FPX says that anyone may undo the FPX by voting support, I'm willing to vote support. I'd agree with Tony that this is small, but it may be worth making an exception for this, and the above comments seem enough to justify action being taken. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Well, in this case...  Oppose Because of missing color. The Obamas are a highly relevant subject, and should be represented by a high quality, undoctored color photograph, not by an artsy product of Photoshop's sepia filter. -- JovanCormac 14:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose no mitigating reasons for low size and artsy pseudo b/w (pseudo not so much as a derogatory term, but desaturated digital pictures do not even come close to real b/w photography). We have plenty of good Obama pictures. --Dschwen (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment See also Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg for a nomination of an Obama photo that is arguably better in quality by an order of magnitude. It didn't get featured (8 support, 6 oppose) because of a lot of unfortunate coincidences: One oppose was without a stated reason, one because of a "copyright thing" (unfounded, as it is released under CC 3.0) and one has to be among the most stupid reasons I have ever seen for an oppose (I leave it to you to figure out which vote I'm talking about; hint: there are two strong candidates). -- JovanCormac 15:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Also as a side note, I realize the blurriness does not affect the main subject but I find it to be a bit distracting (particularly in the bottom right corner.) If a high quality picture could be found of them I would support it, but this picture isn't the one. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support GerardM (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Happy to have a happy photo of the US president :)
•  Oppose - crop, focus, no wow: better photos of these subjects are available. Jonathunder (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Low size, no wow and I agree with TonyBallioni, the background is distracting.--Captain-tucker (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose size.--Claus (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Clear FPX case (size). Lycaon (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)