Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kafka1906.jpg

File:Kafka1906.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 22:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kafka1906.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kafka1906.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait
•  Info created by Atelier Jacobi: Sigismund Jacobi - uploaded by Maartenvdbent~commonswiki - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - What a haunting facial expression! But too small for FP or QI. Try VIC. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

* Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is too small, as noted above Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Check now --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support to remove FPX. Not too bad for the time, and nice pose. Yann (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Question Any chance of getting rid of that ugly mark left by a paper clip (up right)? --cart-Talk 12:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose LivioAndronico, where on earth did you get this POS from? The quality is dreadful. It looks like it has been upscaled and sharpened. This file is a classic example of where Commons does a poor job with artworks. There are at least two different copies of this photograph, of varying quality and size, and they all have different sources. Yet nobody updates the "source" in the description. Can we have some honesty about where we pinch our photos? -- Colin (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Colin keep calm...is only a pic --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 05:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Colin said it: Not to put too fine a point on it, this expanded version sucks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks Ikan Kekek,very helpful --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 05:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• You really need specifics? It was horribly out of focus, with weird artifacts. But surely, you saw that yourself. But it looks like it's now 494 × 794 pixels and should be FPXed again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Can you explain to me where I asked you specific? Why do you invent things? Above is a photo of 1906, you know you do better? I do not believe. Be polite I just tried to help out in any case not answer questions that nobody made to you ... specific ... who gave it to you asked ... boh .... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm talking about your enlarged version, not the original photo, which is great but too small for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment User:The Photographer has reverted Livio's version. At least the current version isn't trying to pretend it has more pixels than it had. -- Colin (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Overprocessed --The Photographer 16:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment and remark: as I noticed that there are people of several cultures on these discussions and sometimes is not possible to recognize the border between formal and sarcastic language, can we please stay on referential language only and avoid (no exception) anything that might sound either as sarcasm, mockery, criticism of the person, demeaning of one's skills, accusations of lack of objectivity and whatever else, please? Thanks. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What on earth is "referrential language"? -- Colin (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • referential. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)