Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Starlette.jpg: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:45, 28 November 2009

Starlette.jpg

Starlet with photographers, at the Cannes Film Festival , according to file description page.

Reason: Clearly not FP quality and below EV standards. ZooFari^{Thank you Wikipedia!} 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous nomination/s: Original nom: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Starlette; 1st delist nom: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/starlette
Nominator: ZooFari^{Thank you Wikipedia!}

Delist — ZooFari^{Thank you Wikipedia!} 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very well illustrates both Media ethics and Cannes Film Festival. Very good composition. Had overwhelming support in 2005 (15+/2-). Historic significance: nobody would wear such clothes nowadays any more. Elekhh (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree about the clothing - I've seen similar in celebrity pages recently. No starlet would have legs unshaven or unwaxed like that however. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually referred to the photographers, but is a very good observation about the body hair :) Elekhh (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. I've shuffled it round a little in Cannes Film Festival so it better illustrates the section. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some EV issues fixed, but I remain unconvinced with quality. The composition is poor in my opinion, the background photographers are underexposed, and the woman posturing is cut off. @ Elekhh: FP standards have changed since 2005 and it would be unfortunate if no one had guts to wear the cloths. ZooFari 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of how distracting is the "starlette", the image is not used to illustrate her as a movie star, but the film festival and the media exposure. I think is good for the composition that she's cut off, allowing thus the visual centre of the image to move towards the photographers. I agree that the image is not perfect in every single detail but I think it has high EV. I mentioned the very strong FP support from 2005 to underline that the image has such qualities. Elekhh (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I honestly don't find the EV high enough for exceptional quality. ZooFari 05:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I thought I recognised this image. I see I supported it then and I like it even more now. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ** Regardless of how distracting is the "starlette", the image is not used to illustrate her as a movie star, but the film festival and the media exposure. I think is good for the composition that she's cut off, allowing thus the visual centre of the image to move towards the photographers. I agree that the image is not perfect in every single detail but I think it has high EV. I mentioned the very strong FP support from 2005 to underline that the image has such qualities. [[User:Elekhh|Elekhh]] ([[User talk:Elekhh|talk]]) 05:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 ***I honestly don't find the EV high enough for exceptional quality. '''<font color="874302" face="comic sans ms">[[User:ZooFari|Zoo]]</font><font color="d65518" face="comic sans ms">[[User talk:ZooFari|Fari]]</font>''' 05:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
+*'''keep'''. I thought I recognised this image. I see I supported it then and I like it even more now. --[[User:Silversmith|<font color="A29EBA">'''Silversmith''']]</font> <small> [[User Talk:Silversmith|Hewwo]]</small> 06:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 <!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
 {{-}}