Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ali Sistani
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 10:10:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is of a high technical quality. Good contrast, sharp, accurate exposure. Good composition with no distractions. It is a unique image as it is extremely difficult to take a picture of this personality. In fact, there are no recent pictures of him that come close to this quality, copyrighted or otherwise. It is the best picture of Ali Sistani on the web or in print. Period.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Ali al-Sistani
- FP category for this image
- Muslim scholars
- Creator
- isakazimi
- Support as nominator --hasin 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Excellent quality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- However, I Oppose the alternative - awkward cutout, particularly around the beard. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Have to disagree, the wrinkled white bed sheet as a background and very bland dull lighting does not make this a good portrait. That combined with the sinister stare he's giving... not my opinion of a FP quality image. It also doesn't meet our minimum size requirements on any axis, so Speedy Close. — raekyt 05:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I dont think you can speedy close when a nomination has already received a support other than the nominator's -Muhammad(talk) 12:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Edit 1 Uploaded I have tried to fix the background and given a shadows adjustment --Muhammad(talk) 12:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Low res according to the requirements but when we raised the limit, we had mentioned that exceptions could be made for rare/historical images. --Muhammad(talk) 12:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- this is a modern photo of a living person, why should this meet that exception on size? Explain... — raekyt 18:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Exceptions can be made for rare photos. This is the best quality photo I have seen on the internet or otherwise. Since he is very well protected, under normal circumstances, photographers would not even be allowed near him with a camera. --Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- just as in wp:nfc a living person can't be used as an exception since we could get better, the clause was intended for things like File:Pale Blue Dot.png which clearly we can't get a higher resolution version of. — raekyt 19:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you take a look at the discussion where several people who supported mentioned exceptions could be made for difficult images. The current criteria mention Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed. This clearly meets the criteria --Muhammad(talk) 00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm aware of what was discussed, what I meant, I thought I said, was if he's alive it's not impossible. — raekyt 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that it is, due to his seclusion, security and lack of any public appearances. --Muhammad(talk) 06:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Raeky: I think the wrinkled bed sheet gives the photo character as it displays the reality of his simple life in the suburbs of Najaf. The lighting in my opinion is realistic. If you think creative lighting makes for a good people encyclopedic photo, i beg to differ. I feel, the more realistic the lighting, the more encyclopedic, at least for people. Landscapes/effects are better-of with creative lighting. As far as the size is concerned, anyone here who has ever printed digital photos would know that in a A4 size print, a photo with 1500 px dimension would look no different from a picture with a 1000 px width. Do also note that a better picture is currently practically impossible. If you feel this cannot be the case, try to appeal to the larger wikipedia community for one. Hence, just because of the size, it would be cruel not to feature this very rare photo. If you wish to understand why I call this a rare photo, have a look at [[1]] and see how many of them even have a photo available, let alone, one of this quality. As to 'sinister stare', i believe thats your subjective opinion and cannot be a base for opposing.41.79.68.1 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that it is, due to his seclusion, security and lack of any public appearances. --Muhammad(talk) 06:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm aware of what was discussed, what I meant, I thought I said, was if he's alive it's not impossible. — raekyt 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you take a look at the discussion where several people who supported mentioned exceptions could be made for difficult images. The current criteria mention Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed. This clearly meets the criteria --Muhammad(talk) 00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- just as in wp:nfc a living person can't be used as an exception since we could get better, the clause was intended for things like File:Pale Blue Dot.png which clearly we can't get a higher resolution version of. — raekyt 19:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Exceptions can be made for rare photos. This is the best quality photo I have seen on the internet or otherwise. Since he is very well protected, under normal circumstances, photographers would not even be allowed near him with a camera. --Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- this is a modern photo of a living person, why should this meet that exception on size? Explain... — raekyt 18:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks like a passport photograph. The eyes aren't in focus and the sheeting material behind him is distracting. The edit alt is poor in terms of the cutout and the lifting the shadows was undesirable: it makes his black cloak grey. For the record, I agree with Muhammad wrt an exception to the size criterion: just because something is theoretically possible, doesn't make it a realistic possibility. Colin°Talk 09:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- What is your basis of assuming it is a passport photograph? And if it is, why is that a reason for opposing? I think the eyes are in focus. In my opinion the eyes make the photo look alive, and is one of the strongest aspect of this photo.41.79.68.1 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please be aware on FPC's policy on anonymous IP editors for nomination pages... You may want to use an account, since this is your first edit on wikipedia it make's your involvement here a bit suspicious, or did you just forget to login? The reason is clearly stated, it looks like a passport photograph. Take a look at other featured picture portraits, they all have FAR better quality and interest than this photograph. Sure he may be hard to photograph, maybe near impossible to photograph, he's still alive so it's still POSSIBLE. I really can't see the case that a living person is so infinitesimally hard to photograph that we have to make exceptions like this, not only is it too small per our standards, it's just very poor snapshotty quality. — raekyt 01:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- While I disagree with the IP's opinion I strongly support its right to comment here. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please be aware on FPC's policy on anonymous IP editors for nomination pages... You may want to use an account, since this is your first edit on wikipedia it make's your involvement here a bit suspicious, or did you just forget to login? The reason is clearly stated, it looks like a passport photograph. Take a look at other featured picture portraits, they all have FAR better quality and interest than this photograph. Sure he may be hard to photograph, maybe near impossible to photograph, he's still alive so it's still POSSIBLE. I really can't see the case that a living person is so infinitesimally hard to photograph that we have to make exceptions like this, not only is it too small per our standards, it's just very poor snapshotty quality. — raekyt 01:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- What is your basis of assuming it is a passport photograph? And if it is, why is that a reason for opposing? I think the eyes are in focus. In my opinion the eyes make the photo look alive, and is one of the strongest aspect of this photo.41.79.68.1 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Low lighting on both, the original has a horrible background and the edit has the previously mentioned cutout issues. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I feel this picture is of very high EV simply because none other is available or will be available unless the political situation changes drastically in Iraq. As far as EV goes there are very high chances that this is the best picture that will be available of this personality. hasin 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Not promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)