Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Raphael Matos 2011

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2012 at 21:00:09 (UTC)

Reason: Well-composed, natural, high-resolution photo of Raphael Matos wearing his racing gear and with an appropriate back-drop for the subject.
Articles in which this image appears: Raphael Matos
FP category for this image: People/Sport
Creator: myself, User:nave.notnilc

Support as nominator --Nave.notnilc (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original -- Poor composition (team member behind him) Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is perfectly explained in the nomination statement, which one should take care to read, on repeated occasions. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very POINT-y. I read both (note that I didn't complain about the ~~car~~ tires). The team member is extraneous, cut off, and distracting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral weighted towards oppose. Hands are cut off, distracting orange blob in the upper left corner. Yes, I know it's a crew member, but it still looks like a distracting orange blob. And Let's please keep our comments to the picture at hand, not how we feel about other people's actions on other recent noms. Clegs (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewers should consider it their obligation to read the opening statement and caption, and if they evidently do not, they should be reminded of the need to do so. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if the reminder is barking up the wrong tree, i.e. making the wrong assumptions? Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this is not relevant to the nom, it needs to find a new venue. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm willing to edit out the crew member in the background (I think it can be done cleanly); would that be within the 'minimal editing' bounds of the guidelines? Nave.notnilc (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It looked to me like it could be done cleanly, and yes, that would easily be sufficiently minor based on previously promoted items. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd certainly reconsider my vote. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Edited to remove crew member from upper left. Nave.notnilc (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The edit should generally be added separately. I'd support it, but it should follow Commons' policy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't aware of the convention; reverted and re-uploaded as separate file. Nave.notnilc (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1 only Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 only. Addresses my above concerns enough. Clegs (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 only. The edit to remove the "orange blob" has been skilfully done and greatly improves the portrait. What was all that fuss about. Colin°^Talk 22:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Forced smile and awkward body pose, face in shadow. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JJ. This is not an exceptional portrait. J Milburn (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JJ Harrison. Sanyambahga (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]