Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oval Office

Oval Office[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2011 at 02:44:50 (UTC)

Reason: High resolution, good EV for the article 'Oval Office'.
Articles in which this image appears: Oval Office
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator: Federal Government of the United States

Support as nominator --EngineerFromVega^T 02:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sharp, high resolution, and high EV. It would be even better if the photographer were standing back a bit more so we could see more of the room, but with a high security location like this we cannot control it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horrible snapshot photography. At least we can see the photographer is wearing a blue shirt. JFitch (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I don't think it's that snapshotty. I can think of ways to improve the composition but this is clearly not a studio shot, it's photojournalistic. I'm guessing that that Obama merely tolerated photographer for a short period of time. It would have been better IMO if he'd moved forward slightly (rather than back) to exclude the distracting corner foreground elements (which would have also meant tilting the camera up slightly to maintain the rest of the composition and would then have required some perspective correction), but even an experienced photographer can't always get everything right under pressure. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK possibly i was too harsh, and certainly I understand that even the best photographers can be affected by pressure. But then a shot with mistakes like that is not something i would support featuring. JFitch (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whats it a picture of? President Obama or the Oval office? Its obviously not a portrait, and its obviously not the greatest picture of the oval office. Dusty777 (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I think this is pretty good, actually, though I don't like the photographer appearing in it--it's kind of a cute detail for an otherwise very sober photograph. But EV is a problem--the caption suggests its value actually pertains to Death of Osama bin Laden, but the relevant section of that article contains (appropriately) a video of the speech itself. If we had an article on the speech it would go in it, but it doesn't seem to be important enough as oratory for that. Chick Bowen 22:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Comes across as more Obama fanboying. Dusty's reasoning is solid. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rather an ordinary picture of a president sitting at his desk. Aequo (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - looks bad in a thumb (features too small, don't know which one is essential), and when I zoom to actually see the details which might be of interest, I see too much noise and relatively low sharpness for a still studio-like shot. Materialscientist (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have to really zoom in to identify Obama, this lessens the EV since nor it a great shot of the Oval Office. --117.226.160.45 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above comments. -- paulcmnt ^Talk 09:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dusty and and MaterialScientist. Clegs (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Xijky (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]