Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Homeless man NYC

Homeless man NYC[edit]

A well-composed b&w portrait of a homeless man in New York City by User:CGP. Used in Homelessness in the United States, Poverty in the United States, and Social conflict theory. Yes, it's tilted, but the angle of the shot is such that the pillar and the line separating the black and white glass panes cannot both be straight vertical.

Nominate and support. howch e ng {chat} 16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 Despite minor noise. Good picture, well expossed and encyclopedic subject matter. I like that he is shown in situ. Also, not a bad example of the rule of thirds HighInBC 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting composition. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 18:11Z
Support — Nice picture, but I've also uploaded an edited version to reduce some noise and not make the ground so bright. I support either version, though. ♠ SG →Talk 19:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In thumbnail size, I had trouble picking out features like the man's head. --M @r ē ino 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What kind of monitor are you using? I can see the head clearly in thumbnail view. HighInBC 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the original photo. IMHO, it looks better than the edit. TomStar81 22:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original photo. Interesting, adds great value to the article. --vineeth 06:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, artsy composition detracts from encyclopedic illustration of the subject. Most of the image is occupied by the background, crowding the subject against the bottom and left. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice image, looking good should be a reason for supporting it, not opposing it. Iorek85 08:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either version with preference for edit --Fir0002 12:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Per Night Gyr. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Night Gyr --Vircabutar 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support original or edit 1. Per Night Gyr, and the fact that there are some blown highlights in the shoes and such. Otherwise a very aesthetically pleasing picture. --Tewy 18:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pic is tilted. Correcting the slope improves it greatly so I do not understand the remark above, saying that the tilt can't be corrected. I've brought it into my graphics program and correcting the tilt is easy and greatly improves the look of the pic. I've not uploaded it here because I'm too lazy - Adrian Pingstone 22:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 00:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 I rotated the Edit 1 version of the image so that the column is vertical. If requested, this can easily be done to the original image, as well. -- mcshadypl^Talk ^Cont 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original, Oppose edit 1,2. Edit 1 just blurs the pic, edit 2 ruins the composition by cropping to close to the feet, plus in a pic like this the collumn doesn't have to be exactly vertical, the slight slant emotionally intensifies the picture. As for the original, great picture, the background is absolutely needed, I creates a feeling of desolate lonelyness. --Dschwen 13:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is obviously impossible to align the image without cropping it, as white edges would have appeared at the corners. -- mcshadypl^Talk ^Cont 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's why my point was: Don't align it! --Dschwen 18:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support either of the three with preference for the original. Definately meets enough Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? critera to warrant it becoming featured.--Jersey Devil 18:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Its amaizing how an image that is both artistic and encyclopedic looks. Id rather have the second edit without so much croping, the feet are way to close to the edge of the picture. if none can come up with it original is better.Nnfolz 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. The original is an interesting attempt, but is cropped a bit too closely in the lower left and the sneakers and cart contents are almost completely blown. It's also more of a subtle political comment (given the prominence of the flag) than it is an encyclopedic image of homelessness. Something that shows a homeless person asleep in a doorway, on a steam grate or in a shanty would work better to illustrate homelessness. -- Moondigger 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Fantastic shot, but WAY too much grain/noise (film or digital?) for FPC, IMO. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above and the other people who have voted oppose and there is also some blown highlights.. this image is OK but not an FP. Arad 23:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Artistic and encyclopedic. - Darwinek 22:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Artsy depiction detracts from the plight of homeless people, which should be what an encyclopaedic pic focuses on. --jjron 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above: not encyclopedic. Good candidate for the same category in Commons though, which it already is. —Jared Hunt September 4, 2006, 22:49 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]