Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/RJ Palacio at BookCon (16102).jpg

R. J. Palacio

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 03:27:12 (UTC)

Reason: high-quality image of a notable author
Articles in which this image appears: R. J. Palacio
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Artists_and_writers
Creator: Rhododendrites

Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – A snapshot of an author and graphic designer at a commercial event called BookCon. Lacks EV regarding the subject's career, and the target article about her is a stub. Seems promotional. Distracting text in background. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Promotional"? I went to a convention as a volunteer specifically to take pictures for Wikipedia. Does that context ruin the value of the photo because it's a "commercial event"? She has an article and passes our notability criteria. There's no requirement that the article a picture is in be at a particular state. You can always WP:SOFIXIT, of course. What sort of picture would add "EV regarding the subject's career"? This is an author and illustrator at an event for authors and illustrators, signing a book she authored and illustrated. Oppose if you don't think it's a good picture, sure, but the rest is irrelevant. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "promotional," it seems you are promoting the subjects of these photos, for whatever reasons you may have. IMO, neither photo fulfills Criterion No. 5. Others may differ. – Sca (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From today's Main Page, here's an example of a photo that embodies at least some EV regarding the subject's career.
– Sca (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another. – Sca (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside, for a moment, your bizarre accusation of bad faith... I didn't ask for what photo you think adds EV for a random subject. That's an athlete. There's an obvious context for an athlete: at an athletic event. What sort of picture would add EV for this subject? The equivalent of an athlete with a tennis racket smiling off to a fan at a sporting event -- if it is not an author with a book smiling off to a fan at an author event, what is it? Authors don't have a uniform or a prop other than a book or a pen. They don't make their living doing things in front of people; they make their living in a room at home, writing. They support that work through this kind of event. Sure, some authors become celebrities and make other kinds of public appearances, and some authors' work lends to some form of public performance, but for a typical fiction author, unless they're also teaching, this is the visible part of their career -- showing up and signing books. In other words, you have not clarified, but just further reinforced that you continue to operate according to your own inscrutable FP criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of bad faith. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are promoting the point of view that going to an event known to involve famous authors, with the intent of improving our coverage of pictures of famous authors, is promotionalism. Where do you think open-access-licensed pictures come from? Would it be more appropriate and less promotional to wait until those authors tell their publicists to release a photo as open access, rather than using photos from a volunteer Wikipedian? Do your opinionated edits count as promotionalism for your opinion? Should your promotionalism of your opinion disqualify you from contributing to FPC? Because that may not make much sense, but neither does what you are saying. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"promoting the subjects of these photos"? Otherwise known as taking photographs to illustrate Wikipedia articles? Strange interpretation of "promoting". And what relevance is stubbiness of target article? PamD 20:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And lacking Encyclopedic Value? What can be more valuable to the encyclopedia than an image of the person who is the subject of the article. I don't understand that comment. PamD 21:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article illustrated remains a 75-word stub. The "stubbiness" of the target article is relevant because stubs provide little information and therefore have little EV. – Sca (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: good quality illustration of notable writer. PamD 20:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the reasons above. On a side note, I think it's great that Rhododendrites has had the gumption to go and take this photo of R. J. Palacio and the skills to make it a good quality photo to boot. -Yupik (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - distracting text in background; objection by Bammesk in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nic Stone applies equally here as well. MER-C 11:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am one of the most active admins against WP:UPE and covert advertisers and do not agree with the promotional comment. MER-C 13:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heaven knows where we're meant to get pictures from, if people object to promotional photos (even when they're not actually promotional), object to unposed ones, regularly reject posed ones as too forced in the past, and object to pretty much any background. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 12:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am neutral on voting. I would have supported if the glass frame wasn't covering her eyes so much (and I might be too strict on this). I agree with David Eppstein and others above. Bammesk (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I like the facial expression and it's a good action shot of a book author doing something relevant to her notability (signing one of her books), a better choice than just a straight headshot. And I think the background text is ok because it sets a context that is relevant for the photo. But the capture is a bit noisy and her signing hand and pen aren't quite in focus. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geoffroi (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - Distracting text in the background Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - text in background isn't that distracting, honestly. And I like the composition. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, nice capture of expression, background text is legible enough to add context but de-emphasized enough not to be clutter. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp.--Vulp here 12:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:RJ Palacio at BookCon (16102).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With 8,5 supports and 4 opposes this nomination is barelly passing (68%). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]