Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Wikileaks Rally Hobart 2010 2.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikileaks Rally[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2010 at 09:10:30 (UTC)

Original - A December 2010 rally in Australia protesting the Australian government's treatment of Julian Assange
Reason
Quite demonstrative of the strong public support (see some of these polls for token evidence) that Julian Assange has in Australia. We don't cover news events very much at FPC.
Articles in which this image appears
WikiLeaks
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator
Noodle snacks
  • Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Quite the opposite of demonstrating "the strong public support", I find this image shows a handful of underwhelmed people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.156.145 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose. Sorry, I have to agree with 77.12.156.145. J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Have to agree too. I know by Tasmanian standards this is an out of control mob ;-), but probably not significant enough as a protest for FP. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I protest this nomination with the same amount of energy displayed in the image. Nergaal (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Doesn't really show all that much. It also has a strange look to it, as if it's been shopped. Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Background looks fake. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The "shopped" and "fake background" comments don't have any basis in reality. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter if the background isn't fake or the image isn't shopped, if it looks like it is, that is a problem and downside to the image. Anoldtreeok (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you actually articulate reasons for your fallacious interpretation? Noodle snacks (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give you that it would be an illusion and not photoshopped. I never said it was, it just has a strange look that gives that impression. There is an odd and unbelievable (to me at least) sense of space, which makes it feel like some of the people in the photo have been shopped in. I don't believe they were, it just looks that way, and as a result I don't support it. The background also does indeed look fake as AmericanXplorer13 said. Perhaps you cannot see it because you know the landscape, but to someone who doesn't, it looks rather odd. There are parts of the background that are hard to make out and are out of focus, and there's a bit of roughness to how things appear on top of each other, which adds to the feeling that the picture has been edited. Granted, it is a bit unfair to fault the picture if this is indeed what the landscape looks like, but the way the photograph is taken makes it hard to really see where it is. A more specific example is the woman (whose head is cut off) standing in front of the pond/stream thing. There is just something I find unrealistic about where she is. I think there is a bit of forced perspective going on. This means that the photo in some way doesn't portray the scene accurately. Another example is what I assume a lamp posts. They just don't look right. I can't explain it I'm afraid, they just don't. All this combined really means I can't support this picture. Anoldtreeok (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My take is that it's because the strip of brightness at the top of the frame looks like sky in the thumbnail, when on closer inspection it's clearly a road. Because our brain perceives it as sky, the perspective looks wrong as a consequence. I don't think this is such a major issue but I guess it's the sort of subject that needs everything lined up just right to make the grade. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't even pick up that it was a road. I can now also see that what I called the river/pond thing is just a path. It kind of makes it clearer, but I still think there is something off about it. Anoldtreeok (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above about how the protest does not seem very large or significant. Also, regarding the "fake"-looking background, I am particularly irked by the top right corner, especially how there is no continuity in the background after it goes behind that woman with her head chopped off. Although it does not detract from the main purpose of the image, it does significantly take away from the aesthetics, and, to a subjective extent, the composition of the image. Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The photo is unremarkable technically, and the tight focus makes it impossible to judge how large the crowd is (eg, are these people just part of the crowd or everyone who turned up?) Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Wikileaks_Rally_Hobart_2010_2.jpg&oldid=1138503221"