Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lorde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2014 at 13:59:02 (UTC)

Alternative – Lorde
She's amazing
Articles in which this image appears
Lorde, The Love Club EP, Lorde discography, Pure Heroine
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
(Kirk Stauffer)
  • Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Both images should have a personality rights template. I guess that's a Commons issue. That aside, why 2 images? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it's so that we can choose which we like. That being said, I'm not a fan of either, at least for encyclopedic writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
      • As to choice, that much I understood :-) Not a practice I would care to see on every nom. That aside, what's wrong with a performer performing as a FP? Seems rather appropriate to me, as opposed to some static portrait. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
        • She doesn't have her eyes open in either. The top image is better than the bottom one (IMHO), but it doesn't say "FP" to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
          • That's kinda her signature look, she closes her eyes when she performs. You should have watch her at the Grammy's.--Theparties (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
            • Only way I could have done that would have been to hook up satellite TV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was going to support the "original", since a signature look captured on camera is great for illustration purposes until I viewed at full size. Both images are severely artifacted, probably due to noise in combination with oversharpening. --Ebertakis (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it's the noise in combination with far too much JPEG compression. 600kb for a 16 megapixel image (with quite a lot of 'detail', even if much of it is noise) is excessively small. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Glitzy. Sca (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support provided the copyright issues are OK. I find the comment "I'm not a fan of either, at least for encyclopedic writing" to be just plain ridiculous. A photograph of a performer performing is entirely suitable. Let me put it to you that if this was a late 19th century poster showing an actor playing Sherlock Holmes, you would be finding some "encyclopedic" justification for it that was entirely content-based. Well, the content here is a performing artist doing what she does. The image is indeed "glitz", and so it should be. The top photo is beautifully composed, focussed where it needs to be, artistically conceived, full of the soul of the performance. I find the light in the lower on a distraction. Amandajm (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I explained that comment in more detail later on. I never said I don't think a performer performing has no encyclopedic value. I said I'm not sure about these images owing to her eyes being closed. Since that has been addressed, I have not !voted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The original has a decent composition but image quality is lacking. Image noise, if preserved, might have been tolerable (f/2.8, 1/200th and ISO 4000 are pushing the limits of quality low light photography) but the detail is ruined by JPEG compression. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Shame about the quality of that first one. Quintessential Lorde, iconic even. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I love the first picture, but I'm not convinced that the quality is great. J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)