Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Katie Green
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2013 at 19:07:35 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- High resolution portrait photograph of English model Katie Green.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Katie Green +1 other
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others (or /Entertainment?)
- Creator
- NGUYEN DINH Quoc-Huy, photography; Keraunoscopia, derivative
- Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support I thought this might be an overly flattering image. It wasn't, despite being a bit dated. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. To really illustrate the caption would be good to have a picture that shows her figure. Also, if that is her noteworthy feature...TCO (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- She's also notable for her height. Should I add a scale to the image? :) I'd see your point if it were illustrating an article on large-size models, but my experience is that full-length portraits aren't usual for lead images. This is what she looks like; the article expounds on how others wish her to appear. There is another image on the article, a little lower, that shows more of her body, but it's still difficult to really see that she's "larger" without her standing next to a size zero model, imo. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 03:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Then it's poorly captioned (which technically is a criteria...go look). Better to just say "Kate Green". And yes, if the caption mentioned how tall she was and showed a head shot, it would also be poor information design. It's not rocket science. Basic concept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 July 2013
- Ah, thanks, I'm still learning here. I saw on the Gaddafi nom that the caption should be more neutral for the main page so then I started wondering if captions here are used on the main page. I didn't realize that, I was just throwing out information. The template says "for context" but I didn't know how far that carried. Updated caption to be standard-fare stuff. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Then it's poorly captioned (which technically is a criteria...go look). Better to just say "Kate Green". And yes, if the caption mentioned how tall she was and showed a head shot, it would also be poor information design. It's not rocket science. Basic concept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 July 2013
- She's also notable for her height. Should I add a scale to the image? :) I'd see your point if it were illustrating an article on large-size models, but my experience is that full-length portraits aren't usual for lead images. This is what she looks like; the article expounds on how others wish her to appear. There is another image on the article, a little lower, that shows more of her body, but it's still difficult to really see that she's "larger" without her standing next to a size zero model, imo. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 03:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. Brandmeistertalk 09:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support. I tweaked the caption, just a bit more, because I was honestly curious if it was a wedding pic. (Seems she is still on the market...purely editorial interest of course...)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 July 2013
- Support. A model modelling- a nice dynamic portrait, as you'd expect from a professional photographer with a professional model! I agree with Keraunoscopia about a full-body shot- I think demanding we see the body of a model because we need to see how thin she is(n't) is patronising, even offensive. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Katie Green, Nikon Solutions Expo, 2008 (crop).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)